Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Timberrrrrrrr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I don't get the push back here, I think it is fair enough to state that an entity commissioning an inquiry into itself may not yield completely impartial results.

If the NMH was investigating the NMH then he wouldnhave a point. The fact that it will ve an external company seems to matter not as he thinks that the NMH money will mean they won't be impartial.

That's why he is wrong.

aloyisious

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I don't get the push back here, I think it is fair enough to state that an entity commissioning an inquiry into itself may not yield completely impartial results.

Well the NMH would have to have some input into who'll do the inquiry to ensure the person would know something about the business and would be impartial/not with animus. Given the Royal College of Obstetrics apparently declined a request to do the inquiry, it seems it might be hard to fill the position.

realitykeeper

aloyisious wrote: »

Well the NMH would have to have some input into who'll do the inquiry to ensure the person would know something about the business and would be impartial/not with animus. Given the Royal College of Obstetrics apparently declined a request to do the inquiry, it seems it might be hard to fill the position.

Perhaps they did not like the terms of reference. Maybe the NMH had been a little to forthright and expressed a desire for the type of inquiry that would exonerate them.

realitykeeper

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If the NMH was investigating the NMH then he wouldnhave a point. The fact that it will ve an external company seems to matter not as he thinks that the NMH money will mean they won't be impartial.

That's why he is wrong.

No, that`s why I`m right. Of course the inquiry team are going to be partial to the people who are paying their wages.

For all we know the NMH may be planning to interview multiple candidates until they find one that will do it their way and of course that could mean a total whitewash. Even if they just pick a name from a hat, the people (or person) commissioned might be mindful of the possibility of repeat business in future when they issue their report. That means some serious sugarcoating.

robindch

realitykeeper wrote: »

Of course the inquiry team are going to be partial to the people who are paying their wages.

Don't know how or where you work, but in my area, there are plenty of professionals who act as professionals regardless of who's paying them. While the people most easily bought off, seem - with distressing regularity - to be the same people who manifest the greatest outrage at the idea that anybody else might be corruptible.

Calina

It is called projection. People project what they would do on to others.

realitykeeper

robindch wrote: »

Don't know how or where you work, but in my area, there are plenty of professionals who act as professionals regardless of who's paying them. While the people most easily bought off, seem - with distressing regularity - to be the same people who manifest the greatest outrage at the idea that anybody else might be corruptible.

Don`t know where you work but in business, there are many who operate on the principle that the customer is always right (even when they`re wrong). The NMH is the customer, I think we can therefore expect a whitewash.

Igotadose

realitykeeper wrote: »

A judge and the department of Justice respectively.

No crime was committed.

realitykeeper

Igotadose wrote: »

No crime was committed.

That presumption is always made when a judge is appointed. Judges can preside over civil cases and not just criminal ones. They can chair tribunals of inquiry also.

realitykeeper

Calina wrote: »

It is called projection. People project what they would do on to others.

Is that what happened when they aborted a healthy child?

MOD: Your friendly mods with like to remind you, as others have been reminded, that as this is a discussion forum posting one liners/slogans that read like bumper stickers and/or making inflammatory comments is below the standard of discussion expected and required. No more of this kind of thing please.

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

No, that`s why I`m right. Of course the inquiry team are going to be partial to the people who are paying their wages.

Any evidence that this has happened before when inquiries like this have happened in ireland?

For all we know the NMH may be planning to interview multiple candidates until they find one that will do it their way and of course that could mean a total whitewash. Even if they just pick a name from a hat, the people (or person) commissioned might be mindful of the possibility of repeat business in future when they issue their report. That means some serious sugarcoating.

This could also go for anyone who does the investigation, you think judges (you said one should do the investigation) are above reproach?

So who/what company do you think should be commisioned to do this investigation that would satisfy your criteria?

Also, what experience.would a judge have in these matters? The 1st thing he would do is bring in a company to do this investigation and write a report for him, the taxpayer would still be forking out for it which you said was unacceptable to you.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Details of all inquiries carried out into hospitals can be found here:https://www.lenus.ie/discover - can you find one report where despite the evidence the inquiry was favourable to the 'clients'?

realitykeeper wrote: »

The NMH is the customer, I think we can therefore expect a whitewash.

Have you found that inquiry report yet where a whitewash occurred?

realitykeeper

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

This could also go for anyone who does the investigation, you think judges (you said one should do the investigation) are above reproach?

So who/what company do you think should be commisioned to do this investigation that would satisfy your criteria?

Also, what experience.would a judge have in these matters? The 1st thing he would do is bring in a company to do this investigation and write a report for him, the taxpayer would still be forking out for it which you said was unacceptable to you.

Like a say, I judge should do the inquiry. No judges are not above reproach. A judge would have the similar experience to other judges who carried out inquiries in the past. A judge would call on witnesses and hear testimony. No judge in history has ever looked up the yellow pages to find some company to do his job for him. What is unacceptable would be for the MNH to commission the inquiry team.

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

Like a say, I judge should do the inquiry. No judges are not above reproach. A judge would have the similar experience to other judges who carried out inquiries in the past. A judge would call on witnesses and hear testimony. No judge in history has ever looked up the yellow pages to find some company to do his job for him. What is unacceptable would be for the MNH to commission the inquiry team.

A judge would have to bring in experts, possibly from the companies you are claiming would be biased, those companies would have to be paid by the taxpayer.

realitykeeper

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Have you found that inquiry report yet where a whitewash occurred?

The inquiry and it`s whitewash are still at the tendering stage.

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

The inquiry and it`s whitewash are still at the tendering stage.

Ah so you have no evidence of it you're just predicting it will happen?

Well going by your previous predictions over the last several years I'm guessing that history will repeat itself and you will yet again be wrong on many levels.

realitykeeper

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

A judge would have to bring in experts, possibly from the companies you are claiming would be biased, those companies would have to be paid by the taxpayer.

At a tribunal, witnesses can be subpoenaed and different parties can send their own experts to testify. Taxpayers money is wasted if it is not used properly as would be the case if the NMH commissions the inquiry team. A tribunal would be more impartial.

realitykeeper

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ah so you have no evidence of it you're just predicting it will happen?

Well going by your previous predictions over the last several years I'm guessing that history will repeat itself and you will yet again be wrong on many levels.

I am predicting nothing, the NMH have already admitted they are commissioning an inquiry into themselves.

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

At a tribunal, witnesses can be subpoenaed and different parties can send their own experts to testify. Taxpayers money is wasted if it is not used properly as would be the case if the NMH commissions the inquiry team. A tribunal would be more impartial.

So you don't want to waste taxpayers money but you want a tribunal?

In ireland?

Yeah.....those have always been the best options and value for money :rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

I am predicting nothing, the NMH have already admitted they are commissioning an inquiry into themselves.

You're predicting it will be a "whitewash" before a single person has given evidence or even before the enquiry has started!

Why do you lie RK? Lies make baby jeebus cry you know! Off to cenfession with you.

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

The inquiry and it`s whitewash are still at the tendering stage.

Nice avoidance of the question.

Have you any evidence yet of your claim that everyone claiming that they were abused by the church are doing so for the money.

Given the fact that their whitewash inquiries have lead to more children being abused, and significant cost to the taxpayer to actually confirm that it's systemic within the religion we actually have evidence of their whitewash, you haven't presented any to support any of your claims.

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

The inquiry and it`s whitewash are still at the tendering stage.

So you have zero evidence of a whitewash ever occurring in any inquiry into practices in a hospital regardless of who commissioned, paid for, or carried out that inquiry but you just know that this time it will be a whitewash...


Ohhhkay.

Bannasidhe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You're predicting it will be a "whitewash" before a single person has given evidence or even before the enquiry has started!

Why do you lie RK? Lies make baby jeebus cry you know! Off to cenfession with you.

Mod: Naughty! Shiney new charter clearly states

Posters are not allowed to refer to each other, directly or indirectly, as "liars", "trolls", "bigots", "bullies", "soap-boxers" or any other terms which impute antisocial motives to other posters.

.

Any more of that and moderation will occur.

Timberrrrrrrr

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Mod: Naughty! Shiney new charter clearly states .

Any more of that and moderation will occur.

Apologies.

robarmstrong

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So you have zero evidence of a whitewash ever occurring in any inquiry into practices in a hospital regardless of who commissioned, paid for, or carried out that inquiry but you just know that this time it will be a whitewash...


Ohhhkay.

Would it be against forum charter if I was to ask the poster in question for the winning Lottery/EuroMillions numbers?

Apologies if it derails the thread, but I would like to use their impeccable knowledge of the future for my own personal gain.

I'll split the winnings though.

Bannasidhe

robarmstrong wrote: »

Would it be against forum charter if I was to ask the poster in question for the winning Lottery/EuroMillions numbers?

Apologies if it derails the thread, but I would like to use their impeccable knowledge of the future for my own personal gain.

I'll split the winnings though.

I have not found any mention of predicting the future in the Charter. But perhaps it will be included in some future charter - who can tell?

Calina

realitykeeper wrote: »

Is that what happened when they aborted a healthy child?

No.

Kidchameleon

realitykeeper wrote: »

Is that what happened when they aborted a healthy child?

They didnt abort a healthy child.

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

Is that what happened when they aborted a healthy child?

Kidchameleon wrote: »

They didnt abort a healthy child.

Mod: No. Just NO. This is not discussion. One inflammatory comment with a response that just pours fuel on the fire - neither are of the standard required or expected in this forum.

amcalester

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have not found any mention of predicting the future in the Charter. But perhaps it will be included in some future charter - who can tell?

RK can apparently.

amcalester

[HTML][/HTML]

amcalester wrote: »

RK can apparently.

Ironic given it's considered a sin.

realitykeeper

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Apologies.

As you should.

realitykeeper

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have not found any mention of predicting the future in the Charter.

Nor have I. As for prediction the winning lotto numbers, if I could do that, I would never buy the winning ticket, that would be cheating.

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

As you should.

The apology was to the mod, what i said still stands true.

Bannasidhe

amcalester wrote: »

RK can apparently.

DubInMeath wrote: »

Ironic given it's considered a sin.

realitykeeper wrote: »

As you should.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Nor have I. As for prediction the winning lotto numbers, if I could do that, I would never buy the winning ticket, that would be cheating.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The apology was to the mod, what i said still stands true.

Mod :*sigh* I am officially frowning over the top of my reading glasses pondering whether infractions or lines is more appropriate in the face of this schoolyard bickering.

Please return to the topic.
Thanking you.

realitykeeper

The following statements were taken from the following article:


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/couple-in-abortion-tragedy-lose-plea-on-review-38232688.html

The couple at the centre of the tragic abortion case at the National Maternity Hospital were not consulted on the membership of the external panel who will examine their case, it emerged yesterday.

and

Ms Haughey said that on "May 16 last my clients were told they would be consulted regarding the membership of the panel and be allowed to forward details of their own experts".

So, the whitewash begins.

Hotblack Desiato

Ridiculous to call it a whitewash before it's even begun - how about waiting for the report?

Why would the couple determine who is on the investigative panel?

If I'm suspected of a crime, can I choose which garda investigates it or who the judge is?

This thread has gone beyond ridiculous.

robindch

realitykeeper wrote: »

So, the whitewash begins.

There's nothing contradictory about those statements.

Granted, both are carefully phrased, but in the context where people choose to interpret statements politically - like you - rather than procedurally, their caution is well-advised and entirely appropriate.

realitykeeper

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If I'm suspected of a crime, can I choose which garda investigates it or who the judge is?

This thread has gone beyond ridiculous.

No you would not be able to chose the Gardaí or the Judge. That is common sense as it could result in a whitewash. There is nothing ridiculous about common sense.

aloyisious

realitykeeper wrote: »

No you would not be able to chose the Gardaí or the Judge. That is common sense as it could result in a whitewash. There is nothing ridiculous about common sense.

Who do you think would be the advisors to the couple on who should be their choice to sit on the investigative panel? I cant see them or their lawyer being expert on the matters likely to be essential to any investigation. To go blind into deciding who should be their rep on the panel would be more of a disaster for the couple than any whitewash you think could happen so maybe its vital to know who is advising them and him on that essential point. If we are to take the statements attributed to the couple and their lawyer at face value, and speculate about a whitewash, there must be some substance available to give any such speculation any basis at all.

realitykeeper

aloyisious wrote: »

Who do you think would be the advisors to the couple on who should be their choice to sit on the investigative panel? I cant see them or their lawyer being expert on the matters likely to be essential to any investigation. To go blind into deciding who should be their rep on the panel would be more of a disaster for the couple than any whitewash you think could happen so maybe its vital to know who is advising them and him on that essential point. If we are to take the statements attributed to the couple and their lawyer at face value, and speculate about a whitewash, there must be some substance available to give any such speculation any basis at all.

As anyone who has ever seen a courtroom drama will attest, lawyers have no difficulty securing expert opinion as and when required, its part of what they do. In any case, it looks like they have been frozen out of the process. I suppose that should have been expected.

amcalester

realitykeeper wrote: »

As anyone who has ever seen a courtroom drama will attest, lawyers have no difficulty securing expert opinion as and when required, its part of what they do. In any case, it looks like they have been frozen out of the process. I suppose that should have been expected.

You've backed yourself into a corner here, if lawyers can secure an expert opinion then surely it is only right that the parents are excluded from the process as anyone they pick would only skew the findings in their favour.

Essentially, you are saying that an impartial review of what happened is impossible.

realitykeeper

amcalester wrote: »

You've backed yourself into a corner here, if lawyers can secure an expert opinion then surely it is only right that the parents are excluded from the process as anyone they pick would only skew the findings in their favour.

Essentially, you are saying that an impartial review of what happened is impossible.

On the contrary, I am saying it should be totally independent of the NMH i.e. not commissioned by the NMH but if that is the only show in town then of course the other side i.e. the parents of the deceased should be represented by their own professionals and not just the NMH with their hand picked contractors.

You seem to be suggesting that no lawyer should ever represent their client because that would be biased.

smacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

On the contrary, I am saying it should be totally independent of the NMH i.e. not commissioned by the NMH but if that is the only show in town then of course the other side i.e. the parents of the deceased should be represented by their own professionals and not just the NMH with their hand picked contractors.

I think this would be true if it were a court case, but it is not it, is an investigation. If the couple are unhappy with the partiality of the investigation or its outcome they still have recourse to the law at which point they can use their own expert representatives.

amcalester

realitykeeper wrote: »

On the contrary, I am saying it should be totally independent of the NMH i.e. not commissioned by the NMH but if that is the only show in town then of course the other side i.e. the parents of the deceased should be represented by their own professionals and not just the NMH with their hand picked contractors.

You seem to be suggesting that no lawyer should ever represent their client because that would be biased.

No, I’m drawing your statements to their logical conclusion. That if an organization commissions an investigation and (according to you) that report is automatically suspect because it is being paid for then the same can be said of any members of that report suggested by the other party.

I don’t believe that, but it’s what you are saying.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/0614/1055371-podcast-voices-of-the-8th-one-year-on/

It's just over a year since the Eighth Amendment was removed from the Irish constitution.

In Voices of the 8th, a new podcast for RTE News, some of those involved on both sides of the campaign including politicians, lawyers, doctors reflect on one of the most monumental events politically and socially in Ireland's history.

aloyisious

realitykeeper wrote: »

As anyone who has ever seen a courtroom drama will attest, lawyers have no difficulty securing expert opinion as and when required, its part of what they do. In any case, it looks like they have been frozen out of the process. I suppose that should have been expected.

Taking your quote about expert opinion for the couple, that, and they, presumably would not be frozen out of any inquiry. Its hard to say in advance that your suggestion would be a cert, maybe just in fact an expression of one's opinion.

Timberrrrrrrr

aloyisious wrote: »

Taking your quote about expert opinion for the couple, that, and they, presumably would not be frozen out of any inquiry. Its hard to say in advance that your suggestion would be a cert, maybe just in fact an expression of one's opinion.

RK has already decided a whitewash is imminent no matter the findings.

realitykeeper

smacl wrote: »

I think this would be true if it were a court case, but it is not it, is an investigation. If the couple are unhappy with the partiality of the investigation or its outcome they still have recourse to the law at which point they can use their own expert representatives.

It is an investigation into the unwarranted abortion of their child. I think they are right to involve their lawyers and by representing them, their lawyers agree.

realitykeeper

amcalester wrote: »

No, I’m drawing your statements to their logical conclusion. That if an organization commissions an investigation and (according to you) that report is automatically suspect because it is being paid for then the same can be said of any members of that report suggested by the other party.

I don’t believe that, but it’s what you are saying.

Again the investigation should not be being commissioned by the party being investigated. The fact that it is, necessitates the need for legal representatives for the parents of the deceased unborn child. Only they are being frozen out of the process by the NMH which is going ahead with their self commissioned inquiry to the exclusion of the parents and their legal team. By the way they are behaving, one wonders the NMH has something to hide?