Mass unmarked grave for 800 babies in Tuam

marienbad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, no, I certainly have addressed it. The only point remaining is precisely how long folk want to string this out. The point is not, as you repeat again, whether or not the Dail report was a source that people at the time read in every corner fo the country. The point is that debates in the Dail reflect the subject matter of public debate.

The question you conclude your post with, which you seem to think is a clincher, just demonstrates you either haven't comprehended this point, or you fully understand it but want to obfusticate.

No, it is you that thinks this is a clincher

''The point is that debates in the Dail reflect the subject matter of public debate.''

You are confusing a dail debate with a public debate or evidence of widespread public knowledge or widespread public concern based on that knowledge'

Have you any evidence for that extrapolation ?

obplayer

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, no, I certainly have addressed it. The only point remaining is precisely how long folk want to string this out. The point is not, as you repeat again, whether or not the Dail report was a source that people at the time read in every corner fo the country. The point is that debates in the Dail reflect the subject matter of public debate.

The question you conclude your post with, which you seem to think is a clincher, just demonstrates you either haven't comprehended this point, or you fully understand it but want to obfusticate.

What on earth makes you think that anyone would have dared to debate this publicly? With the RCC waiting to destroy their businesses, get them fired from someone else's business or just take away their children? Most people were just cowed and terrified.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

marienbad wrote: »

<..>You are confusing a dail debate with a public debate

Sorry, you are confused. A Dail debate is a public debate.

And, as I've stated before and as you've avoided addressing (along with others) the stuff that gets on Dail agendas reflects the issues that are of public concern.

Now, please don't repeat the irrelevant "are you saying everyone in 1926 read the Dail Debates" kite when I'm very plainly saying that's not their significance. The significance, to repeat again the relevant point, is that the fact this was the subject of public debate in parliament at the time shows that it was a matter of general concern. If it wasn't, they wouldn't have broached the topic.

I can't make it much plainer than I'm making it. From my perspective, it takes a lot of work on your part to avoid digesting the point.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

obplayer wrote: »

What on earth makes you think that anyone would have dared to debate this publicly?

What makes me think this is the fact that they did. If you read back over the thread I've posted a number of quotes from public debates at the time, where the fact that illegitimate children had particularly high infant mortality rates was publicly discussed.

obplayer

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What makes me think this is the fact that they did. If you read back over the thread I've posted a number of quotes from public debates at the time, where the fact that illegitimate children had particularly high infant mortality rates was publicly discussed.

Could you give links to these 'public debates' please. I do not mean Dail debates. Apologies if I have missed those links.


Also I am going to bed now, I will read your reply tomorrow.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

obplayer wrote: »

Could you give links to these 'public debates' please. I do not mean Dail debates.

I can see no reason for your arbitrary exclusion of public Dail debates. In any event, they make utter tatters of your statement What on earth makes you think that anyone would have dared to debate this publicly?

The simple fact is that these matters were publicly debated. What needs explanation is how you (and possibly a few others, although I think they've avoided your extreme statement) could possibly pretend that these matters were hidden, when they so plainly were not.

Spring Onion

Good article here;

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/05/horror-tuam-missing-babies-not-diminished

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Sorry, you are confused. A Dail debate is a public debate.

And, as I've stated before and as you've avoided addressing (along with others) the stuff that gets on Dail agendas reflects the issues that are of public concern.

Now, please don't repeat the irrelevant "are you saying everyone in 1926 read the Dail Debates" kite when I'm very plainly saying that's not their significance. The significance, to repeat again the relevant point, is that the fact this was the subject of public debate in parliament at the time shows that it was a matter of general concern. If it wasn't, they wouldn't have broached the topic.

I can't make it much plainer than I'm making it. From my perspective, it takes a lot of work on your part to avoid digesting the point.

I am completely confused as to what point - if any - you are making.

All you have shown is that certain issues pertaining to certain institutions were discussed in the Dail at certain times.

No-one has denied this.

Of course some people knew about it - who the blue bloody blazes do you think enacted the legislation that allowed it to happen? Who signed off on the monies paid to the 'homes'? Who signed the contracts to fund the homes?

Are you suggesting that because some people in authority knew what was happening at the time it is the end of the matter?

Does it not compound the problem when despite certain issues being discussed the abuses continued?

Can you really not understand that the fact that some people in authority were ok with was was going on and used the mechanisms of the State to enable abuse makes it worse?

Are you so caught up in your own futile point scoring that you are blind to what it means when the State itself was involved in the trafficking of children, the incarceration of women, slave labour, systemic neglect and illegal drug trials?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am completely confused as to what point - if any - you are making.

I'll take your confusion to be genuine.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

<...>who the blue bloody blazes do you think enacted the legislation that allowed it to happen?

The 1908 Children's Act? I believe it was sponsored by the British Liberal Party and would have received the royal assent of King Edward VII.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you suggesting that because some people in authority knew what was happening at the time it is the end of the matter?

No, what I've very clearly pointed out is that if people in authority were discussing it in public in the national parliament, in a forum where their discussions (overwhelmingly) are permanently documented in a public record, that its a reasonable indication that these matters were public knowledge at the time.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you so caught up in your own futile point scoring that you are blind to what it means when the State itself was involved in the trafficking of children, the incarceration of women, slave labour, systemic neglect and illegal drug trials?

You'll appreciate, from where I'm sitting there's someone else engaged in futile point scoring, seeing as how we're boring everyone to death again with a discussion that should be uncontroversial.

The significance of these matters being openly debated is that it undermines the idea that this was some secret shame. It also undermines the rhetoric that you chuck about so lightly. Illegal drug trials? Gosh, you mean that before the Supreme Court Judgement in the "PKU" case in 2001 the medical profession didn't have a clear legal break on their capacity to intervene with whatever treatment they thought was necessary? We had a whole debate over the Childrens Amendment not so long ago, where one of the arguments advanced in favour of the change was specifically to undermine the PKU case judgment. And now we're supposed to care about parental consent to medical treatment?

Did you digest any of the contemporaneous discussion, that gives a fair indication of why diphtheria was such an issue at the time. Did you reflect on why it isn't an issue today?

Go on. Score a few points.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'll take your confusion to be genuine.The 1908 Children's Act? I believe it was sponsored by the British Liberal Party and would have received the royal assent of King Edward VII.No, what I've very clearly pointed out is that if people in authority were discussing it in public in the national parliament, in a forum where their discussions (overwhelmingly) are permanently documented in a public record, that its a reasonable indication that these matters were public knowledge at the time. You'll appreciate, from where I'm sitting there's someone else engaged in futile point scoring, seeing as how we're boring everyone to death again with a discussion that should be uncontroversial.

The significance of these matters being openly debated is that it undermines the idea that this was some secret shame. It also undermines the rhetoric that you chuck about so lightly. Illegal drug trials? Gosh, you mean that before the Supreme Court Judgement in the "PKU" case in 2001 the medical profession didn't have a clear legal break on their capacity to intervene with whatever treatment they thought was necessary? We had a whole debate over the Childrens Amendment not so long ago, where one of the arguments advanced in favour of the change was specifically to undermine the PKU case judgment. And now we're supposed to care about parental consent to medical treatment?

Did you digest any of the contemporaneous discussion, that gives a fair indication of why diphtheria was such an issue at the time. Did you reflect on why it isn't an issue today?

Go on. Score a few points.

Perhaps you would address the points I actually made?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm still totally unconvinced by the theory that public knowledge somehow would make any of this 'ok'.

.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

.

He wants to deflect blame away from the nuns and the church by saying that everyone in society was responsible for how these women were treated.

The big difference, is that while society should have done a lot more to protect these women, the nuns and the roman catholic church were the ones who took action deliberately to harm them (oh sorry, i mean, punish them so that their sins can be forgiven) and then added insult to injury by either killing their babies through neglect, or selling them to wealthy catholics abroad for adoption.

marienbad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Sorry, you are confused. A Dail debate is a public debate.

And, as I've stated before and as you've avoided addressing (along with others) the stuff that gets on Dail agendas reflects the issues that are of public concern.

Now, please don't repeat the irrelevant "are you saying everyone in 1926 read the Dail Debates" kite when I'm very plainly saying that's not their significance. The significance, to repeat again the relevant point, is that the fact this was the subject of public debate in parliament at the time shows that it was a matter of general concern. If it wasn't, they wouldn't have broached the topic.

I can't make it much plainer than I'm making it. From my perspective, it takes a lot of work on your part to avoid digesting the point.

can you answer my question then - do you know anyone that ever got their information from a dail debate ?

And another one for you ,how do you know those recent anti-semitic remarks were amended in the Dail record ?

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

marienbad wrote: »

<..>You are confusing a dail debate with a public debate

Sorry, you are confused. A Dail debate is a public debate.

This is an excellent example of sophistry in the Greek sense - in this case, taking something that has one meaning in one context and transplanting it to some place where it has a different meaning, and hoping that nobody will notice the switcheroo.

The phrase "public debate" could mean either "a debate in which the public takes part or has a significant interest" (as marienbad used it) and "a debate to which the public can have access if they wish" (as GCU used it).

The two meanings are quite distinct and slipping from one to the next is considered either inept or dishonest, depending on whether it was unintentional or not.

This discussion is also irrelevant to this thread - feel free to start another thread on it if you wish.

Turtwig

Not sure where this thread is going but the last few posts were, well, um,,er,,

GCU, I'm afraid this thread may not gain utility from you posting in it further. Perhaps, consider amending your posting style?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Turtwig wrote: »

Not sure where this thread is going but the last few posts were, well, um,,er,,

GCU, I'm afraid this thread may not gain utility from you posting in it further. Perhaps, consider amending your posting style?

Right, how's this for an amendment.

Go ask my bollix, you little ****.

Turtwig

No that's OTT.

You think maybe you could tone it down to something politer. Cos technically otherwise we might to give you some cards or a ban. Not a fan of those options though.

So how bout this?
An apology.

tawnyowl

Birroc wrote: »

This is what we do not want in the Mother and Baby inquiry.
This clip is haunting.

Very haunting. He's a courageous man and his wife is very supportive of him.

He was wrongly accused of being "in it for the money" - that accusation still gets thrown at people - just look at some of the comments about people who came forward with complaints against Rolf Harris after his conviction - very quickly accusations of being "in it for the money" started being made.

tawnyowl

robindch wrote: »

More appalling stories emerge from Westbank in Wicklow, a home run by a protestant woman:

http://www.thejournal.ie/westbank-protestant-orphanage-1551863-Jul2014/

All these homes must be included, to get justice for all the victims.

Going Strong

tawnyowl wrote: »

Very haunting. He's a courageous man and his wife is very supportive of him.

He was wrongly accused of being "in it for the money" - that accusation still gets thrown at people - just look at some of the comments about people who came forward with complaints against Rolf Harris after his conviction - very quickly accusations of being "in it for the money" started being made.

And yet those who accuse victims of being only in it for the money can't explain how said victims were rehearsing a tissue of lies over the years on the off-chance any old celebrity would one day find themselves in the dock. Some pretty big coincidences going on there where utterly unrelated people come up with the same story concerning the same celebrity abusing them in a similar fashion over a period of several decades. Not to mention going to court where the defence team can potentially tear them to shreds and they run the risk of being found guilty of perverting the course of justice and all for a few quid. Yes, they're only in it for the money. :rolleyes:

I'd suggest that those who like to think victims of abuse are mercenary liars and pounce on the rare cases of false allegations as being proof of all abuse victims being fakers examine their own consciences a bit more closely.

aloyisious

For what it's worth, the curious thing about Dail debates is that they are NOT Public debates. They are held in a house (Dail/Parliament) to which the public are invited to see and listen (the public gallery) and the debate is broadcast to the public. The topic is decided upon by the parties (whips etc) and controlled by the chair. Joe/Josie Public has no input. The chair decides upon the behaviour of the debaters (their demeanour, if you like) during the parleying (Parlez Vous) between the parties in the house (hence the word parliament).

Spring Onion

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Right, how's this for an amendment.

Go ask my bollix, you little ****.

Whoah there horsey! Unexpected. Who in the Dáil said that?

Can I remind ye that an anagram for his username is "ill exuberance, fume god"

I guess he is fuming.

Spring Onion

A nice song to help everyone calm down

Birroc

I heard on Newstalk this morning that the terms of reference for the inquiry would not be available until Autumn - it was supposed to be published before the summer recess. Typical.

Spring Onion

The outline and terms of reference for the investigation into the mother and baby homes will be delayed and now not finalised until the autumn at the earliest, it has been announced.

The Cabinet discussed ongoing work on the scope and work of the inquiry yesterday and agreed on a chairperson to head up the inquiry. This person will be announced today.

A 37-page report by an interdepartmental group to help the Government decide the terms will also be released today.

However, a Government spokesman last night confirmed that the terms for the mother and baby home investigation will now not be known until later in the year. The Coalition had said it wanted the terms decided before TDs head off on their summer break this week. TDs are also due to debate the issue in the Dáil tomorrow

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/terms-of-reference-for-baby-homes-inquiry-postponed-275542.html

Glengormanjay

Birroc wrote: »

I heard on Newstalk this morning that the terms of reference for the inquiry would not be available until Autumn - it was supposed to be published before the summer recess. Typical.

Hi Birroc is it typical or is it indicative of the usual fudge/smudge where a slow controlled release of info conditions us all into acceptance?

Surly any Government inquiry should in part be subsequent and consequent to the normal Garda/forensic investigation and the findings of same?

Birroc

The government said the "terms of reference" would be published before the summer recess. They are postponing that now to let the story die down and then they will issue the terms of reference during a busy week in Autumn.

The Gardaí haven't lifted a finger yet.

Flippyfloppy

Birroc wrote: »

The government said the "terms of reference" would be published before the summer recess. They are postponing that now to let the story die down and then they will issue the terms of reference during a busy week in Autumn.

The Gardaí haven't lifted a finger yet.

Just like the crèche scandal last summer. They promised a release of HSE reports and most people seemed to forget. They then missed the date and even more people forgot.

They're just normalising the situation, they know exactly what they're doing.

They only made a head of the inquiry, yesterday, before they head off on the summer holliers.

Red Pepper

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Just like the crèche scandal last summer. They promised a release of HSE reports and most people seemed to forget. They then missed the date and even more people forgot.

They're just normalising the situation, they know exactly what they're doing.

They only made a head of the inquiry, yesterday, before they head off on the summer holliers.

I actually expected a postponement. Once the issue goes off the front pages. I can only suggest you email the new Childrens minister Minister Reilly (sigh) and keep the pressure on.

Red Pepper

http://www.newstalk.ie/Government-to-announce-lead-on-mother-and-baby-home

Judge Yvonne Murphy has been annoiucned as the chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry into mother and baby homes.

The institutions came back into focus in recent months after fresh controversy over a mass grave in Galway where it is thought hundreds of children may be buried.

A Commission of Investigation is being set up - but the terms of reference for that inquiry will not now be known until the Autumn at the earliest.

Judge Murphy was also appointed to advise on a redress scheme for women who underwent symphysiotomy.

Meanwhile an inter-departmental report has also been published.

It says the remains of 474 dead children were transferred to medical schools between 1940 and 1965 without the consent of their families.

The report also finds that nearly 2,000 children from the homes were put up for adoption in the United States - with little or no records on parental consent.