FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Contrary to what you were saying blanch - O'Gorman now acknowledges that the legislation was inadequate.

Had it been written properly this would not have arisen. So you were wrong when you said 'the government had no choice', they did, they had the 'choice at anytime to withdraw the legislation and write it 'properly. i.e. it was bad legislation.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40072598.html

Sorry Francie, but that is fully in line with what I have been saying all along.

You and others in a rush to condemn, portrayed the legislation as locking up the documents for 30 years. If the legislation did that, the next phase which O'Gorman is now engaged on, would not be possible. The basic premise of the mob's objections to the legislation - it is covering up information - is completely without foundation now.

The need to transfer the documentation before the Commission destroyed it was the necessary first step all along. Then come the next steps:

"Minister for Children Roderick O’Gorman has acknowledged that the new legislation in relation to Mother and Baby homes does not address all the issues involved and that the need remains for proper tracing legislation and a national archive for the records of the various reports and commissions."

The malicious lie in the form of a conspiracy theory spread by the mob that the legislation was a cover-up was a new low in political debate in this country where the facts were discarded and ignored in favour of mob injustice.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Sorry Francie, but that is fully in line with what I have been saying all along.

You and others in a rush to condemn, portrayed the legislation as locking up the documents for 30 years. If the legislation did that, the next phase which O'Gorman is now engaged on, would not be possible. The basic premise of the mob's objections to the legislation - it is covering up information - is completely without foundation now.

The need to transfer the documentation before the Commission destroyed it was the necessary first step all along. Then come the next steps:

"Minister for Children Roderick O’Gorman has acknowledged that the new legislation in relation to Mother and Baby homes does not address all the issues involved and that the need remains for proper tracing legislation and a national archive for the records of the various reports and commissions."

The malicious lie in the form of a conspiracy theory spread by the mob that the legislation was a cover-up was a new low in political debate in this country where the facts were discarded and ignored in favour of mob injustice.

Wow, you continue to spin and spin.

At any time the government had a 'choice', withdraw the legislation and write it properly as O'Gorman has now said.

You were simply wrong blanch, stop digging and please stop the Niall Collins style defamation. I suggested those in charge were incompetent and out of their depth. That is usually proved when they are forced to u-turn and apologise. QED as they say.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wow, you continue to spin and spin.

At any time the government had a 'choice', withdraw the legislation and write it properly as O'Gorman has now said.

You were simply wrong blanch, stop digging and please stop the Niall Collins style defamation. I suggested those in charge were incompetent and out of their depth. That is usually proved when they are forced to u-turn and apologise. QED as they say.

What complete nonsense.

Nowhere in that article did O'Gorman say that the government should have withdrawn the legislation and write it properly. You are living in a fantasy land making things up.

The legislation was needed, it was passed, it didn't put records out of reach for 30 years, it isn't a simple thing to make the personal information available. All of those are things I said that have shown to be true.


Edit: From the Government statement:

"Finally, the Government reaffirmed the reasons for bringing forward the recent legislation to preserve and protect valuable records that would otherwise have been destroyed or rendered useless. This was as a response to the clearly expressed views of the Commission of Investigation, chaired by Judge Yvonne Murphy, that: The Commission had compiled a database of all the mothers and children who were resident in the main mother and baby homes. It is clear that this database would be of considerable assistance to those involved in providing information and tracing services; under existing legislation, the database would have to be effectively destroyed As the information compiled in the database is all sensitive personal information, the Commission would be obliged under existing legislation to redact the names and other identifying information about the residents of these homes before submitted to the Minister; the Commission stated this would have the effect of rendering the database useless.

The Commission was of the view that the database should be preserved and made available to the holders of the original records for information and tracing purposes (or to whatever body is charged with information and tracing services). The Commission stated very clearly that this would require legislation. The legislation had to be passed before the deadline of October 30th in order to protect and preserve these vital records of a dark chapter in our history."

Everything I have said from the start is in there. As I said already, the mob rushed to judgment, and were wrong.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

What complete nonsense.

Nowhere in that article did O'Gorman say that the government should have withdrawn the legislation and write it properly. You are living in a fantasy land making things up.

The legislation was needed, it was passed, it didn't put records out of reach for 30 years, it isn't a simple thing to make the personal information available. All of those are things I said that have shown to be true.


Edit: From the Government statement:

"Finally, the Government reaffirmed the reasons for bringing forward the recent legislation to preserve and protect valuable records that would otherwise have been destroyed or rendered useless. This was as a response to the clearly expressed views of the Commission of Investigation, chaired by Judge Yvonne Murphy, that: The Commission had compiled a database of all the mothers and children who were resident in the main mother and baby homes. It is clear that this database would be of considerable assistance to those involved in providing information and tracing services; under existing legislation, the database would have to be effectively destroyed As the information compiled in the database is all sensitive personal information, the Commission would be obliged under existing legislation to redact the names and other identifying information about the residents of these homes before submitted to the Minister; the Commission stated this would have the effect of rendering the database useless.

The Commission was of the view that the database should be preserved and made available to the holders of the original records for information and tracing purposes (or to whatever body is charged with information and tracing services). The Commission stated very clearly that this would require legislation. The legislation had to be passed before the deadline of October 30th in order to protect and preserve these vital records of a dark chapter in our history."

Everything I have said from the start is in there. As I said already, the mob rushed to judgment, and were wrong.

So now you think that 'legislation that does not address all the issues' is good legislation?

Spiun spin spin in an effort to maintain you were right about' the government having little choice'.

How about the 'choice' to write legislation that deals with ALL the issues.

This embarrassing, incompetent u-turn would have been avoided.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So now you think that 'legislation that does not address all the issues' is good legislation?

Spiun spin spin in an effort to maintain you were right about' the government having little choice'.

How about the 'choice' to write legislation that deals with ALL the issues.

This embarrassing, incompetent u-turn would have been avoided.

My previous posts have fully addressed all of the issues.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

My previous posts have fully addressed all of the issues.

In one of your previous posts you were adamant the 'government had little choice'

They had choices (a number of them to deliver this with competence) They could have stalled the bill to allow it be redrafted and as O'Gorman says 'address all the issues'.

They also had the 'choices' outlined here by somebody who was competent in what she knew and was addressing.

Dr. Maeve O'Rourke wrote:

First, the minister could take custody of the full archive of the Commission of Investigation, rather than giving part of it away to Tusla. Section 43 of the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 already requires the minister to receive every document created or gathered by a commission.

The decision to interfere with the integrity of this monumentally important archive was made without any consultation on, or pre-legislative scrutiny of, the bill.

Tusla is notoriously under-resourced. It has also been criticised repeatedly by the Collaborative Forum of Former Residents of Mother and Baby Homes, and adopted people more broadly, for operating questionable policies of ‘risk assessing’ all adopted people who apply for their personal data, and treating a person’s publicly registered birth name as ‘third-party data’ which cannot be released without consent.

Second, the minister could confirm in the bill that he will facilitate personal data access requests for information in his archive. This, again, is already the law on the books (since the GDPR came into force in 2018), but the minister’s recent insistence that the archive will be fully sealed indicates his department does not agree, and that people who seek their personal or family records or their transcript of evidence will be refused without such an amendment to the bill.

Third, the minister must publish a comprehensive index to the archive within a month of receiving it from the commission. The index can be anonymised to the extent necessary to protect individuals in their private capacity.
Its production is essential in order to enable consultation about the legislation that is needed to further unseal the commission’s archive — for example, to release the administrative records of the State, the religious and the other entities involved in the operation of the mother and baby homes, county homes, adoption, and related systems.

There is a way out of this week’s mess, if the minister and the Government are brave enough to take it.

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

OK, did you not post a link to the search function and your search on Bowie ré rodders Roderick ó Gorman?
I May be wrong as I'm acting on memory here as before.

You lied and made false baseless accusations using yet another politician's sexuality in an effort to divert the discussion.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

You know well why I wouldn't be surprised at you campaigning against O'Gorman. You have started a number of unsubstantiated conspiracy theory-based campaigns against several public figures for no clear reason. Adding O'Gorman to the list would be based on form.

I will stick with the empty vessels comment. Those making the most noise on this on these threads were engaged in simple and simplistic sloganising which showed a lack of understanding of the complex interactions at play between various pieces of legislation and competing rights and obligations.

For example, I never said that people would not be entitled to their own personal information, just that the issues obtaining it were complex and that the legislation was necessary. And events have followed that path, despite the same empty vessels claiming u-turns for the direction we were already on. All that the government have apologised for is for not communicating more clearly what they are at and consulting with relevant groups, because that is all they failed to do.

There never was any cover-up despite some posters on here going off on one about the Greens covering up FF and FG dirty deeds. Dialling in the outrage might be advisable the next time.

Took you a few days to create this excuse. Complete lies of course. I'll take this back peddle as you hiding your shame.
You are now changing tack because you got called out. Raise your standards because they certainly can't get any lower.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In one of your previous posts you were adamant the 'government had little choice'

They had choices (a number of them to deliver this with competence) They could have stalled the bill to allow it be redrafted and as O'Gorman says 'address all the issues'.

They also had the 'choices' outlined here by somebody who was competent in what she knew and was addressing.

Unfortunately for Maev, she did not consider the interaction of Section 45 with Section 32.

"(3) A commission may omit from its report any information that identifies or that could reasonably be expected to lead to the identification of a person who gave evidence to the commission or any other person, if in its opinion—

(a) the context in which the person was identified has not been clearly established,

(b) disclosure of the information might prejudice any criminal proceedings that are pending or in progress,

(c) disclosure of the information would not be in the interests of the investigation or any subsequent inquiry, or

(d) it would not be in the person's interests to have his or her identity made public and the omission of the information would not be contrary to the interests of the investigation or any subsequent inquiry."

That requirement under Section 32 to protect the identity of individuals would also apply to any documentation which would have to be redacted, rendering pointless any decision under Section 43.

All of which has formed part of the public discussion on the issue, but you may have missed it.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Took you a few days to create this excuse. Complete lies of course. I'll take this back peddle as you hiding your shame.
You are now changing tack because you got called out. Raise your standards because they certainly can't get any lower.

Not a lie.

In fact, the absence of O'Gorman from your many thousands of posts only adds to the evidence of a selective unsubstantiated conspiracy theory-based campaigns against particular individuals.

For example, if one was to search your posts for Eoghan Murphy or Denis O'Brien, you would get thousands of hits, but Roderic O'Gorman gets zero. That doesn't make sense if you had a generalised wide view on politics rather than a very narrow one prone to mob campaigns and conspiracy theories.

The poster who suspected you of leading a campaign against O'Gorman may well have been wrong, but the general point I made of not being surprised if you were campaigning against a particular politician holds.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In one of your previous posts you were adamant the 'government had little choice'

They had choices (a number of them to deliver this with competence) They could have stalled the bill to allow it be redrafted and as O'Gorman says 'address all the issues'.

They also had the 'choices' outlined here by somebody who was competent in what she knew and was addressing.

And Maeves is an unbiased Opinion?!

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Not a lie.

In fact, the absence of O'Gorman from your many thousands of posts only adds to the evidence of a selective unsubstantiated conspiracy theory-based campaigns against particular individuals.

For example, if one was to search your posts for Eoghan Murphy or Denis O'Brien, you would get thousands of hits, but Roderic O'Gorman gets zero. That doesn't make sense if you had a generalised wide view on politics rather than a very narrow one prone to mob campaigns and conspiracy theories.

The poster who suspected you of leading a campaign against O'Gorman may well have been wrong, but the general point I made of not being surprised if you were campaigning against a particular politician holds.

I've asked you to back up these claims before. You have failed. Yet you raise it anytime you hang yourself out to dry with your lies and insults because...people disagree with you in a political discussion.

Murphy was housing minister in a housing crisis.
O'Gorman isn't in a wet week and before this issue never really came into my radar.
You are desperate here.
Anytime I mention any politician it's related to a mostly current political issue.
You raise O'Brien in nonsense to deflect, I mention him in relation to the state engaging with him usually at a loss to the tax payer. Not random like yourself.

The poster lied.

I'll consign you to the Bren and jingles division. Certainly not senior hurling.

McMurphy

Poor auld Bowie never stood a chance


Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the court of blanch, where of course the absence of a single shred of evidence actually compounds your guiltiness. :pac:

blanch152 wrote: »

Not a lie.

In fact, the absence of O'Gorman from your many thousands of posts only adds to the evidence of a selective unsubstantiated conspiracy theory-based campaigns against particular individuals.:D
.

All rise.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Unfortunately for Maev, she did not consider the interaction of Section 45 with Section 32.

"(3) A commission may omit from its report any information that identifies or that could reasonably be expected to lead to the identification of a person who gave evidence to the commission or any other person, if in its opinion—

(a) the context in which the person was identified has not been clearly established,

(b) disclosure of the information might prejudice any criminal proceedings that are pending or in progress,

(c) disclosure of the information would not be in the interests of the investigation or any subsequent inquiry, or

(d) it would not be in the person's interests to have his or her identity made public and the omission of the information would not be contrary to the interests of the investigation or any subsequent inquiry."

That requirement under Section 32 to protect the identity of individuals would also apply to any documentation which would have to be redacted, rendering pointless any decision under Section 43.

All of which has formed part of the public discussion on the issue, but you may have missed it.

Again...you claimed the government had no choice.

They did and it's been demonstrated over and over again.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again...you claimed the government had no choice.

They did and it's been demonstrated over and over again.

Which bit of Maev was wrong and didn't consider other parts of the Act did you not understand?

The woman is intelligent and admirable, but she is also a campaigner and a lawyer, which makes her prone to make arguments that may not necessarily stand up in court, but which advance the interests of her clients, in this case, the campaign. That means at best her view is slanted.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Which bit of Maev was wrong and didn't consider other parts of the Act did you not understand?

The woman is intelligent and admirable, but she is also a campaigner and a lawyer, which makes her prone to make arguments that may not necessarily stand up in court, but which advance the interests of her clients, in this case, the campaign. That means at best her view is slanted.

A lawyer will say what his/her client wants them to say. Some don’t seem to understand this. Even murderers will have a lawyer try and get them off!

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

A lawyer will say what his/her client wants them to say. Some don’t seem to understand this. Even murderers will have a lawyer try and get them off!

It is a difficult one to manage for lawyers as ultimately most of them aspire to being appointed to a post that requires impartiality and independence such as a judge, DPP or AG.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Which bit of Maev was wrong and didn't consider other parts of the Act did you not understand?

The woman is intelligent and admirable, but she is also a campaigner and a lawyer, which makes her prone to make arguments that may not necessarily stand up in court, but which advance the interests of her clients, in this case, the campaign. That means at best her view is slanted.

And you are a FG diehard supporter prone to spinning every single thing a government gets wrong to being a victory for your point of view.

The government had not just a choice, but choices here and choose not to take them which resulted in it's embarrassing climbdown and u-turn.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And you are a FG diehard supporter prone to spinning every single thing a government gets wrong to being a victory for your point of view.

The government had not just a choice, but choices here and choose not to take them which resulted in it's embarrassing climbdown and u-turn.

A u-turn means a reversal. The legislation is not being repealed, the government are not saying it wasn't necessary so there is no u-turn. End of.

As for a climbdown, all they failed with was communication. I read enough on this to understand where it was all going, but I am familiar with the requirements of legislation and public service ways of doing things. Obviously others aren't which led to worry and concern on the part of victims, which was then exploited by others who should have known better.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

A u-turn means a reversal. The legislation is not being repealed, the government are not saying it wasn't necessary so there is no u-turn. End of.

As for a climbdown, all they failed with was communication. I read enough on this to understand where it was all going, but I am familiar with the requirements of legislation and public service ways of doing things. Obviously others aren't which led to worry and concern on the part of victims, which was then exploited by others who should have known better.

So, everyones elses fault except those with the actual responsibility. Heard it all before blanch.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, everyones elses fault except those with the actual responsibility. Heard it all before blanch.

Which bit of they failed with communication is not their fault?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Which bit of they failed with communication is not their fault?

The refusal to allow the bill to be amended was a 'failure in communications'?

You may be fooling your thankers here blanch but nobody else.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The refusal to allow the bill to be amended was a 'failure in communications'?

You may be fooling your thankers here blanch but nobody else.

There was nothing wrong with the Bill, it had to be completed by the deadline.

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

There was nothing wrong with the Bill, it had to be completed by the deadline.

No it didn't. You still haven't evidenced that claim.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

There was nothing wrong with the Bill, it had to be completed by the deadline.

It's proposer has apologised because it did NOT CONSIDER ALL THE ISSUES.

Jeez Louise!

Stop embarrassing yourself.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's proposer has apologised because it did NOT CONSIDER ALL THE ISSUES.

Jeez Louise!

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Fully addressed already. I think you are wilfully misunderstanding in order to prolong a discussion that has exhausted all of the points.

blanch152 wrote: »

Sorry Francie, but that is fully in line with what I have been saying all along.

You and others in a rush to condemn, portrayed the legislation as locking up the documents for 30 years. If the legislation did that, the next phase which O'Gorman is now engaged on, would not be possible. The basic premise of the mob's objections to the legislation - it is covering up information - is completely without foundation now.

The need to transfer the documentation before the Commission destroyed it was the necessary first step all along. Then come the next steps:

"Minister for Children Roderick O’Gorman has acknowledged that the new legislation in relation to Mother and Baby homes does not address all the issues involved and that the need remains for proper tracing legislation and a national archive for the records of the various reports and commissions."

The malicious lie in the form of a conspiracy theory spread by the mob that the legislation was a cover-up was a new low in political debate in this country where the facts were discarded and ignored in favour of mob injustice.

blanch152 wrote: »

What complete nonsense.

Nowhere in that article did O'Gorman say that the government should have withdrawn the legislation and write it properly. You are living in a fantasy land making things up.

The legislation was needed, it was passed, it didn't put records out of reach for 30 years, it isn't a simple thing to make the personal information available. All of those are things I said that have shown to be true.


Edit: From the Government statement:

"Finally, the Government reaffirmed the reasons for bringing forward the recent legislation to preserve and protect valuable records that would otherwise have been destroyed or rendered useless. This was as a response to the clearly expressed views of the Commission of Investigation, chaired by Judge Yvonne Murphy, that: The Commission had compiled a database of all the mothers and children who were resident in the main mother and baby homes. It is clear that this database would be of considerable assistance to those involved in providing information and tracing services; under existing legislation, the database would have to be effectively destroyed As the information compiled in the database is all sensitive personal information, the Commission would be obliged under existing legislation to redact the names and other identifying information about the residents of these homes before submitted to the Minister; the Commission stated this would have the effect of rendering the database useless.

The Commission was of the view that the database should be preserved and made available to the holders of the original records for information and tracing purposes (or to whatever body is charged with information and tracing services). The Commission stated very clearly that this would require legislation. The legislation had to be passed before the deadline of October 30th in order to protect and preserve these vital records of a dark chapter in our history."

Everything I have said from the start is in there. As I said already, the mob rushed to judgment, and were wrong.

Bishop of hope

This just breaking for me, haven't time to discuss yet but here's the link, normal party?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/three-sinn-fein-members-resign-over-covid-19-business-grants-controversy-39682781.html?utm_source=xtremepush&utm_medium=webpush&utm_campaign=SinnFein+291020+%28xtremepush+%2344673058%29&utm_term=notification+%23431387850_1444558892&utm_content=A

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Fully addressed already. I think you are wilfully misunderstanding in order to prolong a discussion that has exhausted all of the points.

Ah here...if this 'mob' was wrong why did the government have to issue a statement (seen by all but you and a few fellow travellers as a climbdown/u-turn) last night.

You are making as big a hames of this as the green Green minister did.

Nobotty

Bishop of hope wrote: »

This just breaking for me, haven't time to discuss yet but here's the link, normal party?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/three-sinn-fein-members-resign-over-covid-19-business-grants-controversy-39682781.html?utm_source=xtremepush&utm_medium=webpush&utm_campaign=SinnFein+291020+%28xtremepush+%2344673058%29&utm_term=notification+%23431387850_1444558892&utm_content=A

I don't see the problem and I don't see why they resigned
SF in the North are not lacking in money
It looks like an oversight to me
I'll bet Nolan is unhappy with the resignations too
He'd rather drama

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah here...if this 'mob' was wrong why did the government have to issue a statement (seen by all but you and a few fellow travellers as a climbdown/u-turn) last night.

You are making as big a hames of this as the green Green minister did.

He can't help insulting and dismissing people even after their vindication. As I said no harm in being wrong but it must be tough to roll with it after all the insults he's spewed over the last few days.