FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

FG trending on Twitter, and not for the reasons they probably want to be tbh. Think this morning's tweet went down like a lead balloon, there's all sorts of tweets, from retracted getting handed deals at tax payers expense, noonan being caught evading tax, to taking the piss from YFG and Trump comparisons.

Whoever is running that Twitter account (and I strongly suspect they walk among us here) needs to have the password changed on them:D

You are caught in that Twitter prison of only hearing what they know you want to hear. You need to break out from the circle of Shinner Twitterati bots.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

You are caught in that Twitter prison of only hearing what they know you want to hear. You need to break out from the circle of Shinner Twitterati bots.

Once again blanch proving he knows absolutely feck all about twitter and how it works.

"Trending on Twitter" - look it up grandpa.

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

You are caught in that Twitter prison of only hearing what they know you want to hear. You need to break out from the circle of Shinner Twitterati bots.

There's someone using bots and it isn't SF lol.

https://twitter.com/BrianDBourke/status/1320432012918968321?s=19

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You are caught in that Twitter prison of only hearing what they know you want to hear. You need to break out from the circle of Shinner Twitterati bots.

Not sure o you think you are codding with this dog whistle stuff.
You know exactly how Twitter works and you know how to use when it suits you.

FrancieBrady

Michael D. more or less saying 'somebody please challenge this pile of ****e'.

https://twitter.com/PresidentIRL/status/1320491169114165248

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Michael D. more or less saying 'somebody please challenge this pile of ****e'.

https://twitter.com/PresidentIRL/status/1320491169114165248

Michael D chickening out of challenging the Bill, you mean. The DPC gave him an opportunity, if he thought there was anything to it, he would have referred it.

Most likely, he thinks, as I do, that the law is more vulnerable to a challenge from someone who gave evidence and believes the anonymity they were promised has been compromised.

Brendan Bendar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not sure o you think you are codding with this dog whistle stuff.
You know exactly how Twitter works and you know how to use when it suits you.

Another long day at the keyboard, Francie?

Bishop of hope

blanch152 wrote: »

Michael D chickening out of challenging the Bill, you mean. The DPC gave him an opportunity, if he thought there was anything to it, he would have referred it.

Most likely, he thinks, as I do, that the law is more vulnerable to a challenge from someone who gave evidence and believes the anonymity they were promised has been compromised.

A puppet leprechaun of a president.
I had to pull the trigger but it wasn't my gun type excuse.
Actually not an honourable statement to make.
But now, over to the whingers, go to court!

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

Michael D chickening out of challenging the Bill, you mean. The DPC gave him an opportunity, if he thought there was anything to it, he would have referred it.

Most likely, he thinks, as I do, that the law is more vulnerable to a challenge from someone who gave evidence and believes the anonymity they were promised has been compromised.

Utterly incorrect. Those that gave evidence were told their testimony could be made public. The survivors wish to have their stories made public and government failed to guarantee them access by allowing for amendments.

https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1320284451767713792?s=19

Bishop of hope

smurgen wrote: »

Utterly incorrect. Those that gave evidence were told their testimony could be made public. The survivors wish to have their stories made public and government failed to guarantee them access by allowing for amendments.

https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1320284451767713792?s=19

If there is one person only even, and that's unlikely, there are hundreds I believe, that doesn't want their story or name made public then they have been protected.
Meanwhile anyone that wants their story heard have avenues open to them to do so too.
The report will be fully public, just no names attached.
Why don't SF or other interested groups set up their own report and outline the stories of the people who want them made public?

smurgen

Bishop of hope wrote: »

If there is one person only even, and that's unlikely, there are hundreds I believe, that doesn't want their story or name made public then they have been protected.
Meanwhile anyone that wants their story heard have avenues open to them to do so too.
The report will be fully public, just no names attached.
Why don't SF or other interested groups set up their own report and outline the stories of the people who want them made public?

Because they don't have access to all the information.
Other commissions simple refused any requests for information with no explanation previously such as the Magdalene commission.

"OPINION
Maeve O'Rourke: Not too late for State to break the secrecy around Mother and Baby Homes
If survivors of mother and baby homes are ever to have justice, the new children's minister must have the bravery to lift the veil of secrecy that hangs over the commission established to investigate their cases.
Maeve O'Rourke: Not too late for State to break the secrecy around Mother and Baby Homes
Survivor Carmel Larkin, 70, stares at an infant’s shoes during a vigil at the Tuam mother and baby home mass burial site on August 25, 2019. Nearly 800 babies and children who died in the home run by Bon Secours nuns were buried there in unmarked graves. Picture: Getty

SAT, 17 OCT, 2020 - 08:00
MAEVE O’ROURKE
I admire Children's Minister Roderic O’Gorman for his commitment to human rights and equality. I believe he will want to respond to the impending report of the Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation in a way that recognises — rather than further denies — the rights of people who were forcibly and otherwise unlawfully separated from their families in our recent past.

Many people affected by the commission’s work meet the international-law definition of a victim of enforced disappearance. This is one of the most serious human rights violations possible, involving the abduction or detention of a person with the State’s knowledge or involvement, following which the State refuses to reveal the person’s fate and whereabouts to their relatives.

When Justice for Magdalenes Research and Adoption Rights Alliance, acting as the ‘Clann Project’, tried to make submissions on these matters to the Commission of Investigation in public in 2016, we were denied a public hearing without the commission specifically explaining why.

Every person who requested a public hearing before the Commission of Investigation was refused permission, as Conall Ó Fátharta previously reported in this newspaper.

Among them was Philomena Lee. Imagine the cascade that might have followed in her wake, and in the wake of other witnesses who sought to make their experiences widely known.
Along with its denial of public hearings, the Commission of Investigation refused all requests by victims of abuse for the personal data that it held on them or their deceased relative.

Witnesses were allowed to read a copy of their evidence in the commission’s office, but they were not allowed to take it away. The commission also refused those affected by the matters it was investigating permission to see or comment on the administrative records or witness statements it was gathering from the State, the Church, or the institutions.

The secrecy imposed by the commission appears to have contravened at least the spirit, and perhaps also the letter, of the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004."

smurgen

smurgen wrote: »

Utterly incorrect. Those that gave evidence were told their testimony could be made public. The survivors wish to have their stories made public and government failed to guarantee them access by allowing for amendments.

https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1320284451767713792?s=19

If Mick Caul and Ruthie say so, then we know that the right decision was made!

Bishop of hope

smurgen wrote: »

Because they don't have access to all the information.
Other commissions simple refused any requests for information with no explanation previously such as the Magdalene commission.

"OPINION
Maeve O'Rourke: Not too late for State to break the secrecy around Mother and Baby Homes
If survivors of mother and baby homes are ever to have justice, the new children's minister must have the bravery to lift the veil of secrecy that hangs over the commission established to investigate their cases.
Maeve O'Rourke: Not too late for State to break the secrecy around Mother and Baby Homes
Survivor Carmel Larkin, 70, stares at an infant’s shoes during a vigil at the Tuam mother and baby home mass burial site on August 25, 2019. Nearly 800 babies and children who died in the home run by Bon Secours nuns were buried there in unmarked graves. Picture: Getty

SAT, 17 OCT, 2020 - 08:00
MAEVE O’ROURKE
I admire Children's Minister Roderic O’Gorman for his commitment to human rights and equality. I believe he will want to respond to the impending report of the Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation in a way that recognises — rather than further denies — the rights of people who were forcibly and otherwise unlawfully separated from their families in our recent past.

Many people affected by the commission’s work meet the international-law definition of a victim of enforced disappearance. This is one of the most serious human rights violations possible, involving the abduction or detention of a person with the State’s knowledge or involvement, following which the State refuses to reveal the person’s fate and whereabouts to their relatives.

When Justice for Magdalenes Research and Adoption Rights Alliance, acting as the ‘Clann Project’, tried to make submissions on these matters to the Commission of Investigation in public in 2016, we were denied a public hearing without the commission specifically explaining why.

Every person who requested a public hearing before the Commission of Investigation was refused permission, as Conall Ó Fátharta previously reported in this newspaper.

Among them was Philomena Lee. Imagine the cascade that might have followed in her wake, and in the wake of other witnesses who sought to make their experiences widely known.
Along with its denial of public hearings, the Commission of Investigation refused all requests by victims of abuse for the personal data that it held on them or their deceased relative.

Witnesses were allowed to read a copy of their evidence in the commission’s office, but they were not allowed to take it away. The commission also refused those affected by the matters it was investigating permission to see or comment on the administrative records or witness statements it was gathering from the State, the Church, or the institutions.

The secrecy imposed by the commission appears to have contravened at least the spirit, and perhaps also the letter, of the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004."

But no ones story can't be told elsewhere if they so want.
Their memories or right to speak haven't been taken from them.
The commission will deliver a 4000 page damning report by all accounts and their records on how they concluded what they did Saved. If they hadn't passed this legislation then those records would have had to be deleted.

Bishop of hope

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But no ones story can't be told elsewhere if they so want.
Their memories or right to speak haven't been taken from them.
The commission will deliver a 4000 page damning report by all accounts and their records on how they concluded what they did Saved. If they hadn't passed this legislation then those records would have had to be deleted.

How dare you come on here on a bank holiday Monday and talk sense!

smurgen

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But no ones story can't be told elsewhere if they so want.
Their memories or right to speak haven't been taken from them.
The commission will deliver a 4000 page damning report by all accounts and their records on how they concluded what they did Saved. If they hadn't passed this legislation then those records would have had to be deleted.

Report could have been delayed and the commission is running five years. There was ample time to address this issue.

smurgen

Deleted User wrote: »

If Mick Caul and Ruthie say so, then we know that the right decision was made!

Oh ya? How about Dr. Maeve O' Rourke's opinion that this was the wrong decision.

Her credentials in case you're wondering:

"Maeve O’Rourke, PhD (Birmingham), LLM (Harvard), BCL (University College Dublin) is Lecturer in Human Rights at the Irish Centre for Human Rights (ICHR). She is Programme Director of the BCL Law and Human Rights, a newly established undergraduate degree programme at NUI Galway. She is also Director of the LLM Human Rights Law Clinic at the ICHR

https://twitter.com/maeveorourke/status/1320004159614160896?s=19

smurgen

smurgen wrote: »

Oh ya? How about Dr. Maeve O' Rourke's opinion that this was the wrong decision.

Her credentials in case you're wondering:

"Maeve O’Rourke, PhD (Birmingham), LLM (Harvard), BCL (University College Dublin) is Lecturer in Human Rights at the Irish Centre for Human Rights (ICHR). She is Programme Director of the BCL Law and Human Rights, a newly established undergraduate degree programme at NUI Galway. She is also Director of the LLM Human Rights Law Clinic at the ICHR

https://twitter.com/maeveorourke/status/1320004159614160896?s=19

There’s nothing stopping people telling their stories if they so wish. Others want to put it behind them and move on. Nothing wrong with either.

Bishop of hope

smurgen wrote: »

Report could have been delayed and the commission is running five years. There was ample time to address this issue.

The act the commission was set up under was the fault really, perhaps this wasn't thought out at the time, I don't know.
But Ó Gorman was in a corner and little time to do what he did.
Perhaps the seeming lack of support from FG/FF even is half because they wanted the report but no names attached at the time as witnesses testimony was bound to be damning on their past.
Perhaps O Gorman deserves credit for his quick actions in doing what he did and actually saving their records instead of the damning he's been getting.

smurgen

Deleted User wrote: »

There’s nothing stopping people telling their stories if they so wish. Others want to put it behind them and move on. Nothing wrong with either.

You're saying you know better than one of the top legal professors in the field. Can you post your credentials just for comparison? It just seems like what your saying above doesn't tally with Dr.Maeve's stance on the matter. Thanks.

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

A puppet leprechaun of a president.
I had to pull the trigger but it wasn't my gun type excuse.
Actually not an honourable statement to make.
But now, over to the whingers, go to court!

Jeez bish, I remember boards.ie during his presidential election, anyone using the "L" word were being called all kinds of derogatory names for insulting Miggledy. Just as well for you that ship has sailed for now. :eek:

Bishop of hope

smurgen wrote: »

You're saying you know better than one of the top legal professors in the field. Can you post your credentials just for comparison? It just seems like what your saying above doesn't tally with Dr.Maeve's stance on the matter. Thanks.

The Minister is no slouch either.
Interestingly there was a, bit of a campaign to bring him down by a poster on this thread a while ago.
Leo gets quite a hounding from the Sam poster, both openly gay men of course has nothing to do with it.

On O Gorman.

"He had completed his undergraduate law degree at Trinity College, followed by a Master of Laws in EU law in the London School of Economics. He completed his PhD entitled 'Union citizenship, social rights and the Marshallian approach' in Trinity College, Dublin in 2011".

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

Jeez bish, I remember boards.ie during his presidential election, anyone using the "L" word were being called all kinds of derogatory names for insulting Miggledy. Just as well for you that ship has sailed for now. :eek:

Wasn't me Mc, never liked the pretentious little "fella".

dundalkfc10

Bishop of hope wrote: »

The Minister is no slouch either.
Interestingly there was a, bit of a campaign to bring him down by a poster on this thread a while ago.
Leo gets quite a hounding from the Sam poster, both openly gay men of course has nothing to do with it.

On O Gorman.

"He had completed his undergraduate law degree at Trinity College, followed by a Master of Laws in EU law in the London School of Economics. He completed his PhD entitled 'Union citizenship, social rights and the Marshallian approach' in Trinity College, Dublin in 2011".

Haha the gay ****e again

Nobody gives a **** if they ride animals, boys, girls or objects

How come when people give out about Mícheál, people don't shout that the posters hate straight people?

Bishop of hope

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Haha the gay ****e again

Nobody gives a **** if they ride animals, boys, girls or objects

How come when people give out about Mícheál, people don't shout that the posters hate straight people?

Jesus, one lad called himself matt Barrett for a time. Same lad wanted rid of O Gorman.

dundalkfc10

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Jesus, one lad called himself matt Barrett for a time. Same lad wanted rid of O Gorman.

So automatically he's against the gays

That's some way of thinking, I'd be going to see a doctor about the Paranoia

smurgen

smurgen wrote: »

You're saying you know better than one of the top legal professors in the field. Can you post your credentials just for comparison? It just seems like what your saying above doesn't tally with Dr.Maeve's stance on the matter. Thanks.

I’ve got a masters in common sense. There’s nothing stopping people talking about their own case. The statements they made to the commission was done so with the understanding that it was confidential.

dundalkfc10

Deleted User wrote: »

I’ve got a masters in common sense. There’s nothing stopping people talking about their own case. The statements they made to the commission was done so with the understanding that it was confidential.

So you know better than people with the legal experience? That's some thinking Maryanne.

Defending the Govt at all costs.

Nobotty

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I’ve got a masters in common sense. There’s nothing stopping people talking about their own case. The statements they made to the commission was done so with the understanding that it was confidential.

Theres nothing stopping a law allowing victims to give permission for their story in the files to be used for whatever purpose they agree to
How about that for common sense?
Why is it not included?

smurgen

Bishop of hope wrote: »

The Minister is no slouch either.
Interestingly there was a, bit of a campaign to bring him down by a poster on this thread a while ago.
Leo gets quite a hounding from the Sam poster, both openly gay men of course has nothing to do with it.

On O Gorman.

"He had completed his undergraduate law degree at Trinity College, followed by a Master of Laws in EU law in the London School of Economics. He completed his PhD entitled 'Union citizenship, social rights and the Marshallian approach' in Trinity College, Dublin in 2011".

800 bodies dumped in a septic tank and you're throwing out insinuations of homophobia. There's no depths that the government supporters won't reach.

smurgen

Deleted User wrote: »

I’ve got a masters in common sense. There’s nothing stopping people talking about their own case. The statements they made to the commission was done so with the understanding that it was confidential.

School of hard knocks or school of life as some hard shaw cranks put on Facebook. I'll take the legal and human rights Professor's stance.