Mass unmarked grave for 800 babies in Tuam

jank

Vivisectus wrote: »

But we have reason to believe that the poor circumstances were deemed acceptable because the women were being actively punished for the sin of having engaged in pre-marital sex.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/young-mums-denied-painkillers-to-make-them-suffer-for-their-sins-30337250.html

We are not just talking "poor hygiene and lack of training" here, as in some poor under-funded nuns doing the best they can in challenging circumstances.

There is very good reason to suspect institutionalized cruelty on a revolting scale, fueled by religious fanaticism.

As for your contention that the comparison should be Afghanistan in the 1940's we compare with, that is just silly. The whole point is to show that even in a war-torn country with shortages and very little medical infrastructure, it is possible to avoid such appalling death rates.

Infant mortality per 1000 in the 1950's was about 60 in western Europe, and 180 in Africa.

Here we are talking over 500 per 1000. Close to 100 times higher.

A few things.

a) I did not bring Afghanistan (or even the statistical argument) into this, Akrasia did to offer a statistical comparison. I was just pointing out that a true comparison should be as identical as possible. i.e. similar years and circumstances. Other wise the stats are wilfully misleading and tbh offer nothing substantial to the issue itself.

b) You said it was deemed acceptable. If it were deemed acceptable by the powers that be why was the place closed down for a time and the matron in charge let go. Maybe it was acceptable for a number of individuals at the home, but that is subjective reasoning.

c) It is clear from the article itself and other articles like the one you posted that the people running the home had little or no proper training. They were either blissfully or wilfully negligent. That is and was the primary reason for the death rate here. What are you suggestion instead. That the nuns wilfully conspired to have a high death rate in this home for religious reasons?

jank

marienbad wrote: »

Jank, I just don't understand your response to some of these stories. Sometimes the offence is so great that the manner and motive of its exposure is really irrelevant .

Lets not continuously over analyse the messenger and just begin to accept responsibility that it happened in this country of ours .

What is it precisely that you have issue with?

On the issue of acceptance? I have accepted it personally. If more people accepted it we would get closer to the actual truth.

marienbad

jank wrote: »

What is it precisely that you have issue with?

On the issue of acceptance? I have accepted it personally. If more people accepted it we would get closer to the actual truth.

Sometimes when the wrongs perpetrated are so great and of such duration that it is best just to show a little humility and take the hit.

This constant carping about the motives accuracy etc of those exposing these issues is just self serving .

The best answer to any distortions is to just get the truth out there.

Vivisectus

jank wrote:

a) I did not bring Afghanistan (or even the statistical argument) into this, Akrasia did to offer a statistical comparison. I was just pointing out that a true comparison should be as identical as possible. i.e. similar years and circumstances. Other wise the stats are wilfully misleading and tbh offer nothing substantial to the issue itself.

And that is exactly what I find so silly. The original point was that in that place, in the 1940's, conditions were much worse than in present-day Afghanistan: a war-torn country experiencing all kinds of shortages and without much of a medical infrastructure.

No-one was trying to make a comparison between conditions in Afghanistan in the 40' and Ireland in the 40's: that is neither here nor there. The fact remains they were worse than a present day war-torn country.

jank wrote:

b) You said it was deemed acceptable. If it were deemed acceptable by the powers that be why was the place closed down for a time and the matron in charge let go. Maybe it was acceptable for a number of individuals at the home, but that is subjective reasoning.

It, and homes like it, continued. Perhaps some of the worse excesses were checked, but the overall conditions remained atrocious... based on the anecdotal evidence we have seen so far.

If we applied your logic, then the fact that some mafiosi got convicted would mean that organised crime could not have been a problem in prohibition-era Chicago.

jank wrote:

c) It is clear from the article itself and other articles like the one you posted that the people running the home had little or no proper training. They were either blissfully or wilfully negligent. That is and was the primary reason for the death rate here. What are you suggestion instead. That the nuns wilfully conspired to have a high death rate in this home for religious reasons?

Blissfully negligent? I don't thing that means what you think it means.

There is no mention in the article that I linked to their level of training as far as I am aware. I do not see how you can consider it "clear that the people running the home had little training" or how you can draw the conclusion that this was what caused the death rate. It may well be correct that they never got any, but I am not aware of evidence either way at this point.

The evidence that we DO have so far, such as the testimony of people who lived in those homes, strongly suggests that the homes were run with the idea in mind that the women who arrived there were to be punished for their sins. Because of this, very cruel treatment and very poor conditions seems to have been perfectly acceptable: painkillers were withheld as a matter of policy so they "would suffer and atone for their sin".

And suffer they did.

jank

marienbad wrote: »

Sometimes when the wrongs perpetrated are so great and of such duration that it is best just to show a little humility and take the hit.

This constant carping about the motives accuracy etc of those exposing these issues is just self serving .

The best answer to any distortions is to just get the truth out there.

Hold on. You claim at the end you want to get the truth out, yet complain when I point out inaccuracies and the methods used in reports which of course is designed to present a picture not entirely truthful and designed more than to increase circularisation and web clicks.

What you are saying is that we should go along with the current narrative even though what is sometimes reported is false and people should just take the 'hit' in regards false reporting.

marienbad

jank wrote: »

Hold on. You claim at the end you want to get the truth out, yet complain when I point out inaccuracies and the methods used in reports which of course is designed to present a picture not entirely truthful and designed more than to increase circularisation and web clicks.

What you are saying is that we should go along with the current narrative even though what is sometimes reported is false and people should just take the 'hit' in regards false reporting.

Not at all - in every scandal to hit the church in the last 20 years they have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the light of day. Obfuscation ,cover up and denial followed by lawyers, delay and self-interest.

When an organisation has a track record of cover ups it really is not in a position to dictate how a story comes out. Better to focus on getting the facts out there , no matter how unpalatable, and try and retain some dignity for the future.

jank

Vivisectus wrote: »

No-one was trying to make a comparison between conditions in Afghanistan in the 40' and Ireland in the 40's: that is neither here nor there. The fact remains they were worse than a present day war-torn country.

Yet, of course people are free to make a comparison yielding a positive sense of reinforcement of an already held belief when one is actually comparing apples and mars bars. Its neither here nor there just as the original comparison is neither here nor there.

Vivisectus wrote: »

It, and homes like it, continued. Perhaps some of the worse excesses were checked, but the overall conditions remained atrocious... based on the anecdotal evidence we have seen so far.

Based on my own personal anecdotal experience/evidence (remember I was born in this home we are talking about so have some personal experience of the place) there was nothing wrong with this home but I am not blind enough to believe or think that.

For those who have already made up their minds about these places and have sentenced people in their minds I would caution and warn people on the excess of using tid bits of information from here and there and then using that to paint a picture not necessarily constant with the entire and whole truth.

Vivisectus wrote: »

Blissfully negligent? I don't thing that means what you think it means.

There is no mention in the article that I linked to their level of training as far as I am aware. I do not see how you can consider it "clear that the people running the home had little training" or how you can draw the conclusion that this was what caused the death rate. It may well be correct that they never got any, but I am not aware of evidence either way at this point.

Sorry it was the article I posted earlier.

Vivisectus wrote: »

The evidence that we DO have so far, such as the testimony of people who lived in those homes, strongly suggests that the homes were run with the idea in mind that the women who arrived there were to be punished for their sins. Because of this, very cruel treatment and very poor conditions seems to have been perfectly acceptable: painkillers were withheld as a matter of policy so they "would suffer and atone for their sin".

And suffer they did.

Yes, I am aware of this and I am also aware of women who went into this home who never experienced abuse of any kind and who actually thanked the nuns for looking after them during this time. I would be very interested to hear a proper and balanced account of conditions during the history of this place and it is clear that is some decades there was some level of mistreatment and abuse going on and in other decades there was not.

jank

marienbad wrote: »

When an organisation has a track record of cover ups it really is not in a position to dictate how a story comes out. Better to focus on getting the facts out there , no matter how unpalatable, and try and retain some dignity for the future.

So you are advocating future reports of these scandals to contain untruths and misleading information for the 'good' of the future?

Vivisectus

jank wrote:

Yet, of course people are free to make a comparison yielding a positive sense of reinforcement of an already held belief when one is actually comparing apples and mars bars. Its neither here nor there just as the original comparison is neither here nor there.

You still seem to fail to understand that none of this contradicts that those homes were worse than a warzone.

Based on my own personal anecdotal experience/evidence (remember I was born in this home we are talking about so have some personal experience of the place) there was nothing wrong with this home but I am not blind enough to believe or think that.

When were you there and what age were you?

For those who have already made up their minds about these places and have sentenced people in their minds I would caution and warn people on the excess of using tid bits of information from here and there and then using that to paint a picture not necessarily constant with the entire and whole truth.

What we already know is pretty damning and extensive. I would hardly call them tidbits either. The stories are kind of piling up.

Yes, I am aware of this and I am also aware of women who went into this home who never experienced abuse of any kind and who actually thanked the nuns for looking after them during this time. I would be very interested to hear a proper and balanced account of conditions during the history of this place and it is clear that is some decades there was some level of mistreatment and abuse going on and in other decades there was not.

From Rose bell, a historian whose dissertation research focused on mother and baby homes:

"During my researching the Home, I spoke to some mothers who gave birth there and their account of their confinements speaks of long unattended labours without sight of a Sister or midwife, it was only during the birth that a nurse was in attendance with only the help of an untrained resident. The doctor gave one examination when the mother was first admitted and that was the last they saw of him. No drugs of any kind were ever administered to help with pain, no kindness ever shown. Only mothers who had the ability to pay £100 for delivery services were allowed to leave after the birth. It was a condition that all others must wait a full year in the Home filling domestic duties, cooking, cleaning, minding the babies and children and tending to the gardens. The mothers did not have the choice of keeping their babies

I wonder who would actually thank someone for that!

I totally agree that getting all the facts out is key and I hope we will see some extensive reporting on it soon. But I think it is hard to deny that the mother and baby home system was atrocious.

marienbad

jank wrote: »

So you are advocating future reports of these scandals to contain untruths and misleading information for the 'good' of the future?

No.

Cabaal

jank wrote: »

Based on my own personal anecdotal experience/evidence (remember I was born in this home we are talking about so have some personal experience of the place) there was nothing wrong with this home but I am not blind enough to believe or think that.
.

So your personal experience you encountered no problems,

There are countless personal stories from people who did go to these homes who had awful lives...many more who lost their babies due to them being sold off (with and without permission) or left in conditions which enabled them (the babies) to die a death that was unnatural when compared to the avg chance of death at the time,

You were lucky, you should count yourself lucky. But while counting yourself lucky you seem to want to deflect critical comments away from these homes.

I'll be honest, this makes you come across as pretty uncaring at times. This may not be your intention but its still how you can come across.

aloyisious

lazygal wrote: »

Have any of the alleged burial sites in Tuam or anywhere else be sealed off for a forensic examination yet? What is the protocol for a forensic investigation, does someone have to report a suspected crime to the Garda or can the Garda start an inquiry itself? It seems crazy that there are possible crime scenes being left alone and makes me think nothing has changed as regards religious bodies being subject to state law.

Your first; don't know.

Yes to your second; a report has to be made for the Gardai to visit and examine a scene. It could be done by a Garda having come across something, initial suspicions/investigating a report from the public and believing there to be a prima facia case to investigate (a Dr declaring suspicious death). I reckon the discovery of X amount of human remains in an underground chamber not built for interring the remains, and outside the normal legitimate burial laws and locations, would be cause enough to make enquiries.

Your third; avoid laying corporate responsibility at a door at all costs. Awkward questions get awkward answers.

aloyisious

Govt Health Minister instructed that no pregnant women were to be sent to Bessborough home. http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/government-banned-sending-pregnant-women-to-bessborough-in-1945-283559.html

jank

Vivisectus wrote: »

You still seem to fail to understand that none of this contradicts that those homes were worse than a warzone.

Job done so from a certain point of view. Point is loosely cobbled together using statistics that are unrelated in events, time and scope. If one is going to bring statistics into this argument then one should at least be honest about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_comparisons_problem

Again, I did not bring statistics into this discussion.

Vivisectus wrote: »

When were you there and what age were you?

If anyone wants more info, PM me. People have done this before and I have obliged them.

Vivisectus wrote: »

What we already know is pretty damning and extensive. I would hardly call them tidbits either. The stories are kind of piling up.
From Rose bell, a historian whose dissertation research focused on mother and baby homes:

"During my researching the Home, I spoke to some mothers who gave birth there and their account of their confinements speaks of long unattended labours without sight of a Sister or midwife, it was only during the birth that a nurse was in attendance with only the help of an untrained resident. The doctor gave one examination when the mother was first admitted and that was the last they saw of him. No drugs of any kind were ever administered to help with pain, no kindness ever shown. Only mothers who had the ability to pay £100 for delivery services were allowed to leave after the birth. It was a condition that all others must wait a full year in the Home filling domestic duties, cooking, cleaning, minding the babies and children and tending to the gardens. The mothers did not have the choice of keeping their babies

I wonder who would actually thank someone for that!


I totally agree that getting all the facts out is key and I hope we will see some extensive reporting on it soon. But I think it is hard to deny that the mother and baby home system was atrocious.

If what you see coming out from the media yes, one with form that point of view. However, I am in a position (due to personal experience more than anything else) to know that what the media wants to portray is not the whole truth of the matter either. I mentioned before that a journalist knowingly published an article in the Cork Independent with 'facts' and statements that was untrue regarding this home in question. This journalist was approached about this by a private citizen and admitted that their 'source' and facts for story was at wrong. There was of course no retraction and the nuns are never going to persue legal action for defamation in the climate of today.

So now the media knows that it can pretty much print what it wants and slant it what way the public wants to consume this story. Didn't the world think that 800 babies were buried in a sewer tank when no such thing was claimed at all?

Note that nobody here pulled me up on this post.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91896123&postcount=1993
If there was ever an example of a willfully misleading headline in a national newspaper this would be it. If people would be honestly after the truth then they should calling out this type of rubbish as well. I hear today that Facebook are clamping down on click baiting. Well, is this headline anything else than click baiting?

To repeat for the 4th time I would welcome an independent inquiry in these matters not only as it will get the truth out but it would be of great interest to me personally.

jank

marienbad wrote: »

No.

Then why do you take issue from the fact that I call out the media for misrepresenting facts?

jank

Cabaal wrote: »

So your personal experience you encountered no problems,

There are countless personal stories from people who did go to these homes who had awful lives...many more who lost their babies due to them being sold off (with and without permission) or left in conditions which enabled them (the babies) to die a death that was unnatural when compared to the avg chance of death at the time,

You were lucky, you should count yourself lucky. But while counting yourself lucky you seem to want to deflect critical comments away from these homes.

I'll be honest, this makes you come across as pretty uncaring at times. This may not be your intention but its still how you can come across.

Thank you for telling me (smugly) that I should count myself lucky without knowing much or anything about my personal experience or my life. I never ever ever thought myself as lucky before to have not suffered abuse after hearing what went on in these homes.

Next time I will be talking to my birth mother I will also tell her that she should count herself lucky that she was not abused at the home. I will also make her feel guilty for the way the nuns treated her because she had no problem with them and to just feel lucky. I will also tell her not to feel any guilt or remorse over the fact that I could have ended up as a statistic but that I was just lucky. I will tell her you told me to feel lucky and it was a revelation as I never entertained that thought before.

Thanks again for reminding me of this fact. Next time when I am pissed off about something trivial I will think of you and your wise words that I have never heard before from anyone else including myself that I am lucky. Thanks again!!!

marienbad

jank wrote: »

Then why do you take issue from the fact that I call out the media for misrepresenting facts?

Because you are aiming at the wrong target , as is consistently the problem when these kind of scandals come to light. Focus on the issue not on the manner of its communication.

It does the victims no good ,it does the church no good ,it does the country no good. Just help get the facts out, for once open the books and let history be the judge .

jank

marienbad wrote: »

Because you are aiming at the wrong target , as is consistently the problem when these kind of scandals come to light. Focus on the issue not on the manner of its communication.

It does the victims no good ,it does the church no good ,it does the country no good. Just help get the facts out, for once open the books and let history be the judge .

Yes, let the facts get out, all for it. But when the media distort the facts it should be highlighted, don't you agree?

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Yes, let the facts get out, all for it. But when the media distort the facts it should be highlighted, don't you agree?

Some media garble on the one hand, massive death rate & selling children abroad on the other. Shockingly enough, I think know which one is worthy of prioritisation and its not "media garble".

jank

Why can we not have both Nodin? Too much to ask?

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Why can we not have both Nodin? Too much to ask?

You seem to be concentrated on one.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

You seem to be concentrated on one.

I have always asked for both. Why can we not have both?

Brian Shanahan

jank wrote: »

Why can we not have both Nodin? Too much to ask?

So the slight exaggeration by using the single word "dumped" by the media is a big enough libel on the church (hint it is not even a libel, just a slight overegging of the pudding) that we can ignore the thousands of babies and children killed by the criminal negligence of officers of the church acting as agents for the state and legal guardians for those children.

To put it this way if it were a single teenage mother from Moyross in Limerick that was found to have killed her child through malnourishment (even if it was simply through her lack of knowledge and not lack of trying) she'd be up before a beak on manslaughter charges. Given the industrial scale of the mother and baby homes and their massively inflated mortality rate, a good prosecution team could press multiple murder charges if there was anyone alive to be charged.

You are excusing what is little better than mass murder simply because a journalist for a newspaper (and possibly just an intern doing headlines) used bad judgement on including the single word "dumped", because that is the single contentious issue in dispute (from the point of view of exonerating the church). What was done in these places, effectively in our names, was a monstrous crime against humanity, comparable in depravity if not in scale to the deportation of dissidents, political opponents, "shirkers" &c. to Siberian gulags to die of starvation and exposure by the Soviet state under Stalin.

jank

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So the slight exaggeration by using the single word "dumped" by the media is a big enough libel on the church (hint it is not even a libel, just a slight overegging of the pudding) that we can ignore the thousands of babies and children killed by the criminal negligence of officers of the church acting as agents for the state and legal guardians for those children.

Where did I say this? Can you quote me?

aloyisious

@jank. Because one has a private owner's views, the other the "public service interest" watchdogs views. After a while, they think only they can see "bigger picture", or what's good for the public who are not ready for/capable of understanding the unadulterated facts.

Cabaal

Wasn't that just handy

marienbad

jank wrote: »

Yes, let the facts get out, all for it. But when the media distort the facts it should be highlighted, don't you agree?

The best way to correct any distortion is to release any and all records and give untrammelled access to the media and authorities.

If that policy had been followed by the church from day 1 on all these scandals then we would be much further along the road to reconciliation and renewal.

Instead we had a drip drip for years with victims goodnames being smeared and the RCC hiding behind a battery of lawyers all to protect their monetary interest. That is what is destroying the Church.

Nixon had it right- it is the cover-up and not the crime that pulls the house down.

Vivisectus

jank wrote: »

Job done so from a certain point of view. Point is loosely cobbled together using statistics that are unrelated in events, time and scope. If one is going to bring statistics into this argument then one should at least be honest about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_comparisons_problem

Again, I did not bring statistics into this discussion.

Multiple comparison problems apply to tests, not to simple statements of comparison. There is absolutely no problem with saying "Mortality in Quebec in the 1970's was higher than in Ireland during the famine" despite the place and the time being different.

If what you see coming out from the media yes, one with form that point of view. However, I am in a position (due to personal experience more than anything else) to know that what the media wants to portray is not the whole truth of the matter either. I mentioned before that a journalist knowingly published an article in the Cork Independent with 'facts' and statements that was untrue regarding this home in question. This journalist was approached about this by a private citizen and admitted that their 'source' and facts for story was at wrong. There was of course no retraction and the nuns are never going to persue legal action for defamation in the climate of today.

So now the media knows that it can pretty much print what it wants and slant it what way the public wants to consume this story. Didn't the world think that 800 babies were buried in a sewer tank when no such thing was claimed at all?

Again - what we can see from recorded testimonies that are already available that those homes were often pretty darn awful. That has nothing to do with media slant.

To repeat for the 4th time I would welcome an independent inquiry in these matters not only as it will get the truth out but it would be of great interest to me personally.

I wonder how you would feel if the results turned out to be pretty damning.

Cabaal

marienbad wrote: »

Nixon had it right- it is the cover-up and not the crime that pulls the house down.

Its true,
The crimes committed are awful on every level but its the reluctance to release records, co-operate with investigations and co-operate with victims looking for details that show just how uncaring these organizations are.

Jank, you can claim we should wait until we have all the details before casting judgement but the fact is its the church's fault we don't have all the details. Time and time again they refuse to come clean.

kylith

Cabaal wrote: »

Its true,
The crimes committed are awful on every level but its the reluctance to release records, co-operate with investigations and co-operate with victims looking for details that show just how uncaring these organizations are.

Jank, you can claim we should wait until we have all the details before casting judgement but the fact is its the church's fault we don't have all the details. Time and time again they refuse to come clean.

It reminds me of a cheating partner; they will never admit to more than you can prove in case they accidentally admit to more than you know. Like, if they'd handed over their files on abuse and we'd said "But, there are hundreds here, we thought it was only one or two!" Makes you wonder what it is that they're not telling us about.