Mother and babies homes information sealed for 30 years

stockshares

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

I was on the Webinar (1:30pm Tuesday). They sent a link to the report after the Webinar (3pm).

Disgraceful, it was all planned so that they could spin this on the news throughout the day that everyone was happy with the report .

How could they be. They hadn't even seen it.

stockshares

stockshares wrote: »

Don't assume.

Catherine Connolly gave a great Interview on Claire Byrne earlier . I'll post it here when it's up on RTE.

She was very critical of the GOVs handling of this and the language used in the report.

The Gov were in possession of this report for months before Xmas and yet many of the survivors have not been given copies yet.

The media reported that they had seen copies during the Webinar Forum on Tuesday but that is not the case. They were given links to PDF versions which understandably many could not even use . Even if they could have accessed the report how could they go through a 3000 page report on short notice.

Vincent Browne was highly critical of this also.

The Commission and Report were designed to minimise any damage to Church and State.

You would understand that if you seen the terms of reference for the Commission. Not all Institutions were covered by it.

stockshares wrote: »

Interview starts at 1h:16m
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/11271643

Miriam Lord in the Irish times commending Catherine Connollys speech in the Dail.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/miriam-lord-government-s-big-gesture-left-in-tatters-by-calm-articulate-anger-1.4457760?mode=amp

Joe Duffy also saying that Catherine's interview this morning on Claire Byrne was powerful.

MrMusician18

thomas 123 wrote: »

The church and state organized this, do you not understand that?

On a national level, it was orchestrated, yes ignorant families agreed and did what they were told as they feared the church.

The shifting of any blame to “Society” or “The times” is nothing short of a disgrace and we as citizens should not accept that.

There is an awful lot of good in the church - but this was pure orchestrated evil with stakeholders earning from
the suffering of your fellow citizen.

It wasn't fear of the church per se, it was fear of reputational damage. It was the fear that other daughters wouldn't be able to get married because of the "disgrace" brought on the family. It was the fear that the crimes of raping fathers, brothers etc would be discovered. Standing in the community was of utmost importance.

There is some poor understanding of our own recent social history. Up until the 60's, marriage was a tool used for survival. Matchmaking, marriages and dowries were used to preserve family security, not anything else. If the couple even liked each other it was a bonus, but largely irrelevant. Marriage for love was something only the most wealthy could afford.

So the fear was not of the church (the Irish were pious, not religious), but if the societal response. Sure you could argue that the church created this society, but that isn't true, or at least the reality is more nuanced than a simple statement. The church existed in the society of the time and the attitudes of society reinforced the church's views and vice versa.

Cluedo Monopoly

stockshares wrote: »

Interview starts at 1h:16m
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/11271643

I just caught the interview on Claire Byrne. Very well spoken as always.

stockshares

Vicky Phelans opinion of the report
https://twitter.com/PhelanVicky/status/1349559633543835650?s=19

blanch152

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It wasn't fear of the church per se, it was fear of reputational damage. It was the fear that other daughters wouldn't be able to get married because of the "disgrace" brought on the family. It was the fear that the crimes of raping fathers, brothers etc would be discovered. Standing in the community was of utmost importance.

There is some poor understanding of our own recent social history. Up until the 60's, marriage was a tool used for survival. Matchmaking, marriages and dowries were used to preserve family security, not anything else. If the couple even liked each other it was a bonus, but largely irrelevant. Marriage for love was something only the most wealthy could afford.

So the fear was not of the church (the Irish were pious, not religious), but if the societal response. Sure you could argue that the church created this society, but that isn't true, or at least the reality is more nuanced than a simple statement. The church existed in the society of the time and the attitudes of society reinforced the church's views and vice versa.

Well said, that is an accurate portrayal of Irish society.

Irish society is different now, hence the rush to blame others - the Church, the State, the political party - rather than to embrace the failings of all of society.

Retr0gamer

blanch152 wrote: »

Well said, that is an accurate portrayal of Irish society.

Irish society is different now, hence the rush to blame others - the Church, the State, the political party - rather than to embrace the failings of all of society.

There's a variety of factors involved. Society contributed (you could rightly argue that said society was perpetuated by the church) but that doesn't exonerate the state and churches involvement in this, they were neck deep in it and profiteering from the misery and death they caused. They don't get a free pass on this.

stockshares

An example of why State Maternity Hospitals were excluded from the Commission's inquiry.

This story was covered on Joe Duffy today
https://twitter.com/susanlohan/status/1349725010685030401?s=19

The state is afraid of two charges being brought against it which are both covered under International Law. Time does not protect you from being charged for these crimes.

1 Forced Disappearances
2 Human Trafficking

The inquiry needed to be limited in its scope in order to deflect attention from these crimes but they can't prevent the truth from coming out.

If you search back to who was making the decisions of the day you will see that some dynastic political families were involved .

tylercheribini

The argument of "we are all to blame" is a non runner, just ask Dr. Noel Browne.Church actively vetoed and obstructed any Government legislation it deemed necessary, this is top down authoritarianism, are the North Korean civilians to blame too then?

stockshares

stockshares wrote: »

An example of why state maternity hospitals were excluded from the Commission's inquiry.

This story was covered on Joe Duffy today
https://twitter.com/susanlohan/status/1349725010685030401?s=19

The state is afraid of two charges being brought against it which are both covered under International Law. Time does not protect you from being charged for these crimes.

1 Forced Disappearances
2 Human Trafficking

The inquiry needed to be limited in its scope in order to deflect attention from these crimes but they can't prevent the truth from coming out.

If you search back to who was making the decisions of the day you will see that some dynastic political families were involved .

Cathys story was on Joe Duffy earlier.
The interview starts at 21m:54s.
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/11271646

Many other stories are covered in this link
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/21893345

For those that say these things happened back then this took place in 1977.

BloodBath

blanch152 wrote: »

Well said, that is an accurate portrayal of Irish society.

Irish society is different now, hence the rush to blame others - the Church, the State, the political party - rather than to embrace the failings of all of society.

The Church was the state and completely dictated what was and was not acceptable in society. Trying to evenly distribute the blame is nothing but a cop out.

It's amazing how society massively changed their tune and improved once the church lost most of the power. Coincidence eh?

the kelt

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's a variety of factors involved. Society contributed (you could rightly argue that said society was perpetuated by the church) but that doesn't exonerate the state and churches involvement in this, they were neck deep in it and profiteering from the misery and death they caused. They don't get a free pass on this.

Absoluoutely

To be honest people trying to claim The Catholic Church was only a contributory factor of society at the time either dont know or deliberately have a revisionist view of our societal history since the birth of the free state constitution.

Thats not to say the entire catholic church should be tarred with the faults of the few, i know from personal experience that not all homes for example were cruel in nature, but i do find the deliberate dilution and deflection to society to be crass, this was a Catholic ruled society that bred this in the first place. Not all the Church is and was bad, to say thats the case isnt accuarte, to blindly defend, deflect what cant be defended because of your religion is abuse itself however. Faith and Church should be as separate as Church and State.

I mean its not as if they had a hand in writing our actual constitution or anything or controlled the major societal vessels ath the time, health, education, even sport the GAA etc.

Returning to John Charles McQuaid, the official biographers of de Valera, Professor T.P. O’Neill and the earl of Longford, accurately reflected McQuaid’s very influential role in the drafting of almost the entire constitution

Presumably at de Valera’s invitation, Fr John Charles McQuaid worked prodigiously on drafting the constitution. He supplied de Valera with learned notes on theories of authority, the family, marriage, Catholic social principles, private property and church–state relations. In the initial stages much of the material submitted was in the form of typed quotations from papal encyclicals. But as the drafting progressed, McQuaid was involved in the actual formulation of the articles dealing with personal rights, the family, education, private property, religion and directive principles of social policy (Articles 40–45 in the final draft).


Ireland was then like a theocracy. Every public, civic and social institution was in thrall to the Roman Catholic Church, and not just the Irish media. Mass attendance was a strict social obligation, the Roman Catholic catechism was a parallel and superior law, the religiously driven stigma of accusation of illegitimacy hung over all of us like a horrible pall and the danger of denunciation by the clergy was real, potentially leading to social ostracism. The belt of the bishop’s crozier could and did end careers.

Speaking up to the institution of the Roman Catholic Church was the road to early involuntary emigration.

Roman Catholicism of a Jansenist kind permeated every crease and fold of society. The power, influence, temporal and spiritual control of the Roman Catholic Church were ubiquitous and all seeing. We were truly a church-ridden society.

Education, health, justice, law, politics and social policy were all under the absolute dominion of the institutional Roman Catholic Church

Society at the time wasnt a separate entity equal of blame, society was a direct result of the power afforded to the Church in this country at the time and absoloute power corrupts absoloutely as we ahve seen unfortunately, society isnt a second bogeyman, its the same under different robes!

BloodBath

Well said. Too many people with their heads in the sand.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Well said, that is an accurate portrayal of Irish society.

Irish society is different now, hence the rush to blame others - the Church, the State, the political party - rather than to embrace the failings of all of society.

Yet again you create your own conclusion, bestow it upon unclear and unnamed posters and then attack this fantasy.

Can you point to anyone excusing the families in the same manner you deflect for and excuse the perpetrators?
The church, the garda, successive FF/FG governments are responsible for committing rape victims to a life of servitude and fear where babies were sold or left to die, for generations. Records were kept and archived and when survivors wanted to speak up and have an investigation they were ignored by the state and church or had road blocks put up.
Today we finally have a report, a report found not fit for purpose by the victims. It's looking more like another FF/FG government report were everyone claims to be sorry and nothing comes of it. Let the next government worry about it.
There's no rush, we've been waiting decades for some accountability off the church, garda, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. We've yet to get it in 2021.

James Brown

stockshares wrote: »

An example of why State Maternity Hospitals were excluded from the Commission's inquiry.

This story was covered on Joe Duffy today
https://twitter.com/susanlohan/status/1349725010685030401?s=19

The state is afraid of two charges being brought against it which are both covered under International Law. Time does not protect you from being charged for these crimes.

1 Forced Disappearances
2 Human Trafficking

The inquiry needed to be limited in its scope in order to deflect attention from these crimes but they can't prevent the truth from coming out.

If you search back to who was making the decisions of the day you will see that some dynastic political families were involved .

As in other areas, neither Fianna Fail nor Fine Gael will give these women peace and justice because it might effect their polling. This is on the Fianna Fail and Fine Gael of back then and today.

James Brown

BloodBath wrote: »

The Church was the state and completely dictated what was and was not acceptable in society. Trying to evenly distribute the blame is nothing but a cop out.

It's amazing how society massively changed their tune and improved once the church lost most of the power. Coincidence eh?

Telling lies and spinning yarns to save political face regardless of the human cost.
We can see that mindset still exists today.

whisky_galore

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Pretty sure it's up to the state but would be nice to know, could be a way to force the government to act rather than release a report, apologise and pretend it never happened.

An apology is cheap and meaningless, just like the round of applause for healthcare staff.

stockshares

Article by Emer O Toole
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ireland-mother-baby-homes-abuse-report-b1787252.html

Headline
The report into abuses at Ireland’s mother and baby homes does not go far enough – there must be criminal justice proceedings.

James Brown

stockshares wrote: »

Article by Emer O Toole
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ireland-mother-baby-homes-abuse-report-b1787252.html

Headline
The report into abuses at Ireland’s mother and baby homes does not go far enough – there must be criminal justice proceedings.

like frontline workers including Nurses, all the platitudes in the world but no genuine support or empathy.
Be seen to pay lip service.

John Hutton

This is an important article from the Irish Times, including detail on who was on the commission and a comment on incorrect evidence in statements

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/commission-heard-from-549-people-who-were-in-mother-and-baby-homes-1.4458658

The Mother and Baby Homes Commission states in bold type in its report that “the conclusions it reaches may not always accord with the prevailing narrative”.

As well as adhering to its terms of reference, it says: “It must look at all the available evidence and reach conclusions based on that evidence. It must be objective, rigorous and thorough.”

Since the report was published, some observers have questioned whether the commission was given sufficient legal staffing – a criticism it is unlikely to have anticipated.

The body was chaired by Ms Justice Yvonne Murphy, a Circuit Court judge who also led inquiries into the handling of clerical child sex abuse allegations in Dublin’s Catholic archdiocese and Cloyne Catholic diocese.

A second member of the commission was Dr William Duncan, former professor of law at Trinity College Dublin and a former member of the Law Reform Commission. Up to 2011 he was deputy secretary general of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, in which capacity he had general responsibility for the Hague Children’s Conventions dealing with international child abduction, inter-country adoption and international child protection.

The third member was Prof Mary Daly, former professor of Irish history at UCD, a founding director of the Humanities Institute of Ireland and president of the Royal Irish Academy.

Commission director Ita Mangan is a barrister, while staff member Maeve Doherty is a solicitor.

As listed in the report, its principal legal researcher was barrister Dolores Sullivan, while junior counsel researchers included Sarah Lea, Meg McMahon, Jeffrey Horahan, Victoria Kilfeather, Kim McDonald, Charles Murray and Mark Ryan.

Barrister Donal McGuinness was involved in commission investigation, particularly that into the Tuam Children’s Home site, while other lawyers who provided services included barristers Ellen Gleeson, Conor Feeney and senior counsel John Healy.
And while there was “no doubt that the witnesses recounted their experiences as honestly as possible”, it had “concerns about the contamination of some evidence. A number of witnesses gave evidence that was clearly incorrect. This contamination probably occurred because of meetings with other residents and inaccurate media coverage,” it said.

James Brown

John Hutton wrote: »

This is an important article from the Irish Times, including detail on who was on the commission and a comment on incorrect evidence in statements

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/commission-heard-from-549-people-who-were-in-mother-and-baby-homes-1.4458658

The claim criticism is merely down to people not happy with the findings ignores the fact that survivors claim their statements were 'glaringly inaccurate' which may explain why they believe the findings to be wrong and a 'whitewash'. There's also the fact that is only addresses the sale of babies in so much as to dismiss the notion.

For example we had a lady on the Radio yesterday speaking on how she had her baby taken and sold on, her having never signed consent. It later transpired that her signature was forged by someone for record purposes.
So if we can't believe any archive or record where does that leave us? Believing a likely well meaning commission looking at suspect documents or the survivors and remains in the baby body dumps?

Let us never forgot we only got this far because private individuals spent decades chasing the church/state.

stockshares

stockshares wrote: »

Article by Emer O Toole
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ireland-mother-baby-homes-abuse-report-b1787252.html

Headline
The report into abuses at Ireland’s mother and baby homes does not go far enough – there must be criminal justice proceedings.

Here are the main points from the article.

Towards the end of the almost 3,000 page report, there are 180 pages of witness testimony, which paint a horrifying picture of coercion, control, and abuse.

The most oft-repeated refrain of the report is “no evidence”. In spite of the testimony of women, such as Terry Harrison, who were brought to homes against their will by priests and nuns and incarcerated there.

In spite of witnesses’ stories of pregnant women being slapped and punched by nuns for not working hard enough, or of children beaten until bleeding and unconscious, the report finds little evidence of physical abuse.

And in spite of the ignored recommendation of survivor Rosemary C Adaser that the commission employ an expert on race to understand the experiences of children of colour and Traveller children, the report finds no evidence of racism.

It is frustrating, the report finds, that the church will not give any information as to where the bodies of the over 900 children that died at Bessborough might be found.

It can find no evidence that there were significant sums of money involved in sending babies to the US to be adopted, but then, it is the opinion of the commission that access to the administrative records of the congregations that arranged such adoptions be governed by the religious themselves.

As to the report’s descriptions of the vaccine trials carried out on vulnerable children, you would swear that the trials were unattributable to any actors and entirely unprofitable. Perhaps it was society as a whole that allowed multinational corporations like Glaxo Wellcome to medically experiment upon these children? The commission asserts there is no evidence of harm from the trials, but it did not investigate to see if long-term harms are evident.

So much for the Apology
At the same time that the Irish state is apologising for the abuses enacted in these homes, it is also attempting to pass legislation to prevent any inquest into the deaths of the children at Tuam.

Human rights lawyer Maeve O’Rourke of the Clann Project says that this report is not a substitute for the justice procedures of a democratic society. The investigation was conducted in secret, in a manner completely incompatible with international best practice for inquiries into human rights violations. Those affected had no access to evidence or their own records; they could not testify publicly or suggest modes of enquiry. Despite government assurances that survivors have the legal right to access their records, the commission of investigation is still denying any requests for information. In short, survivors and adopted people continue to be treated appallingly.

The GOVs desired Spin
Everyone is to blame, and thus no one is to blame.

The deaths at Tuam need to be investigated. Access to personal information – including birth certificates – needs to be unequivocally granted. Criminal justice proceedings need to be facilitated by the state. In short, the law of the land needs to apply to what happened in Mother and Baby Homes and in Ireland’s secret and illegal adoption system.

stockshares

John Hutton wrote: »

This is an important article from the Irish Times, including detail on who was on the commission and a comment on incorrect evidence in statements

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/commission-heard-from-549-people-who-were-in-mother-and-baby-homes-1.4458658

Why is it important ? Are we supposed to be impressed by titles and position.

I wonder what their view of the church is. Are they practicing Catholics for example?

Before they were appointed were they asked for their view on the church?

Do you think theres any chance they might be biased? What's the odds of them being atheists for example.

I'm more concerned with their competence and deeds. They have attempted to whitewash what happened so that the guilty face no charges. It is an attempt to present the report in such a way that the public will accept it and move on.

They thought wrong.

Cluedo Monopoly

stockshares wrote: »

Here are the main points from the article.

Towards the end of the almost 3,000 page report, there are 180 pages of witness testimony, which paint a horrifying picture of coercion, control, and abuse.

The most oft-repeated refrain of the report is “no evidence”. In spite of the testimony of women, such as Terry Harrison, who were brought to homes against their will by priests and nuns and incarcerated there.

In spite of witnesses’ stories of pregnant women being slapped and punched by nuns for not working hard enough, or of children beaten until bleeding and unconscious, the report finds little evidence of physical abuse.

And in spite of the ignored recommendation of survivor Rosemary C Adaser that the commission employ an expert on race to understand the experiences of children of colour and Traveller children, the report finds no evidence of racism.

It is frustrating, the report finds, that the church will not give any information as to where the bodies of the over 900 children that died at Bessborough might be found.

It can find no evidence that there were significant sums of money involved in sending babies to the US to be adopted, but then, it is the opinion of the commission that access to the administrative records of the congregations that arranged such adoptions be governed by the religious themselves.

As to the report’s descriptions of the vaccine trials carried out on vulnerable children, you would swear that the trials were unattributable to any actors and entirely unprofitable. Perhaps it was society as a whole that allowed multinational corporations like Glaxo Wellcome to medically experiment upon these children? The commission asserts there is no evidence of harm from the trials, but it did not investigate to see if long-term harms are evident.

So much for the Apology
At the same time that the Irish state is apologising for the abuses enacted in these homes, it is also attempting to pass legislation to prevent any inquest into the deaths of the children at Tuam.

Human rights lawyer Maeve O’Rourke of the Clann Project says that this report is not a substitute for the justice procedures of a democratic society. The investigation was conducted in secret, in a manner completely incompatible with international best practice for inquiries into human rights violations. Those affected had no access to evidence or their own records; they could not testify publicly or suggest modes of enquiry. Despite government assurances that survivors have the legal right to access their records, the commission of investigation is still denying any requests for information. In short, survivors and adopted people continue to be treated appallingly.

The GOVs desired Spin
Everyone is to blame, and thus no one is to blame.

The deaths at Tuam need to be investigated. Access to personal information – including birth certificates – needs to be unequivocally granted. Criminal justice proceedings need to be facilitated by the state. In short, the law of the land needs to apply to what happened in Mother and Baby Homes and in Ireland’s secret and illegal adoption system.

I think the public have a very real perception now that the commission of inquiry failed in it's duty. Fair play to the TV/radio stations this week for letting the survivors tell their stories. Maybe the next government will do the right thing but I also get the strong impression that many FFGG TDs are not comfortable with the optics of it all. I got the distinct impression from O'Gorman that he has no interest in finding the 900 missing babies at Bessborough or the 800 missing babies at Tuam. I think he is under instruction to delay that legislation. He also did not want to get drawn into the excessive infant mortality rates.

stockshares

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

I think the public have a very real perception now that the commission of inquiry failed in it's duty. Fair play to the TV/radio stations this week for letting the survivors tell their stories. Maybe the next government will do the right thing but I also get the strong impression that many FFGG TDs are not comfortable with the optics of it all. I got the distinct impression from O'Gorman that he has no interest in finding the 900 missing babies at Bessborough or the 800 missing babies at Tuam. I think he is under instruction to delay that legislation. He also did not want to get drawn into the excessive infant mortality rates.

Joe Duffy has done the survivors some good this week and after listening to their stories you have to conclude that the people on the commission are either incompetent or biased towards the church and protecting the Gov.

O Gorman is a spineless Sleeveen like Donnelly. Martin is just obsessed with protecting FF.

He doesn't give a damn about survivors .

Cluedo Monopoly

stockshares wrote: »

Joe Duffy has done the survivors some good this week and after listening to their stories you have to conclude that the people on the commission are either incompetent or biased towards the church and protecting the Gov.

Yep, a lot of radio stations had survivors on and I imagine it will get a lot of discussion at the weekend. Playback on Saturday morning (9am Radio 1) could be worth listening to.

What a tangled web they weave.

John Hutton

stockshares wrote: »

Why is it important ? Are we supposed to be impressed by titles and position.

I wonder what their view of the church is. Are they practicing Catholics for example?

Before they were appointed were they asked for their view on the church?

Do you think theres any chance they might be biased? What's the odds of them being atheists for example.

I'm more concerned with their competence and deeds. They have attempted to whitewash what happened so that the guilty face no charges. It is an attempt to present the report in such a way that the public will accept it and move on.

They thought wrong.

This is getting a bit ridiculous. Judge Murphy also did the Cloyne and Murphy report into clerical sexual abuse, I suppose they are nonsense and can be binned and ignored too.

Cluedo Monopoly

stockshares wrote: »

Joe Duffy has done the survivors some good this week and after listening to their stories you have to conclude that the people on the commission are either incompetent or biased towards the church and protecting the Gov.

O Gorman is a spineless Sleeveen like Donnelly. Martin is just obsessed with protecting FF.

He doesn't give a damn about survivors .

Martin is despised in FF now. He is ruining them and the polls show it. The commission screw-ups will tarnish the FF TDs further.
Their tribunals and commissions continue to achieve very little in the form of subsequent justice or accountability.

stockshares

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

Yep, a lot of radio stations had survivors on and I imagine it will get a lot of discussion at the weekend. Playback on Saturday morning (9am Radio 1) could be worth listening to.

What a tangled web they weave.

Considering the Gov didn't want the women appearing in a public forum the fact that Joe Duffy facilitated them this week was a tonic for the survivors. It's a prime time radio show with a massive listenership.

I hope he follows on from this as he can be very good on historical and investigative matters.

stockshares

John Hutton wrote: »

This is getting a bit ridiculous. Judge Murphy also did the Cloyne and Murphy report into clerical sexual abuse, I suppose they are nonsense and can be binned and ignored too.

Oh and by the way as Mairead Enright points out below survivors are Barristers, Solicitors and Academics too.

Why would you presume that survivors professions are not of the same status as the people on the Commission.

It doesn't matter what a person's profession is but it does to you .

https://twitter.com/maireadenright/status/1349838494873563147?s=19

And on the Cloyne report all that it resulted in was shuffling around.

John Hutton

stockshares wrote: »

Oh and by the way as Mairead Enright points out below survivors are Barristers, Solicitors and Academics too.

Why would you presume that survivors professions are not of the same status as the people on the Commission.

It doesn't matter what a person's profession is but it does to you .

https://twitter.com/maireadenright/status/1349838494873563147?s=19

What are you on about.



People were questioning the competence of the members of the commission... as the article points out should you care to read it...


You are the one making claims that they are biased and have exercised a whitewash. You said you are not concerned with qualifications but deeds. I point out that Judge Murphy has done similar reports before, but you dodge this point.

Cluedo Monopoly

Holly Cairns (SD TD) tearing a government TD (Colm Burke) apart on the report and legislation on TV3.

stockshares

John Hutton wrote: »

What are you on about.



People were questioning the competence of the members of the commission... as the article points out should you care to read it...


You are the one making claims that they are biased and have exercised a whitewash. You said you are not concerned with qualifications but deeds. I point out that Judge Murphy has done similar reports before, but you dodge this point.

Yes and they clearly aren't competent or if they are they've chosen to ignore the testimony of the survivors

They sat on a Commission knowing that the terms of reference did not include all Institutions and particularly institutions where evidence of crimes had been widely documented

They also sat on the commission after being told by the Gov that the International Guidelines on Human Rights were not to be applied.

Surely that must have raised suspicions that their inquiry was being directed in a way the Gov desired and was neither thorough enough or using international best practice

They knew and went along with it

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.rte.ie/news/mother-and-baby-homes/2021/0115/1189881-president-mother-and-baby/

In a statement to RTÉ's Morning Ireland, President Higgins said a newly independent State was captured by a judgemental, authoritarian version of church/State relations that sought to be the sole and ultimate arbiter of morality.

The President also said further work was required to bring to light a fuller understanding of what occurred and why.

He said his thoughts are with all the mothers and children who died in the homes and those who are alive.

The report from the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes, which was published on Tuesday, said it found an "appalling level of infant mortality" at the homes.

The infant mortality rate needs to be investigated much further. Some of the numbers are just mind numbing and the religious orders seemed to stop keeping records after a certain period. Michael D called it 'the death in shocking numbers of infants'.

stockshares

Powerful show on Joe Duffy Today.

Anyone who doubts whether there were forced adoptions or physical abuse should listen back to it later.

It calls into question the motives and competence of the Commission.

James Brown

Looking more and more like the report is not fit for purpose.
Rather than simply saying they can't prove victims claims beyond witness statements, (they failed to reproduce accurately) they opted to word it in such a manner to make it sound like it was false memory.

stockshares

stockshares wrote: »

Powerful show on Joe Duffy Today.

Anyone who doubts whether there were forced adoptions or physical abuse should listen back to it later.

It calls into question the motives and competence of the Commission.

Bowie wrote: »

Looking more and more like the report is not fit for purpose.
Rather than simply saying they can't prove victims claims beyond witness statements, (they failed to reproduce accurately) they opted to word it in such a manner to make it sound like it was false memory.

Joe Duffy Show today
Three stories today, one positive one with Michael a Birth Father.

However Catherine's story regarding her sister is particularly related to forced adoptions. Warning , this does bring up the subject of Suicide. It starts at 57:42 .
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/11271915

The Commission decided that these testimonies would not be heard in public and it's easy to see why they came to that decision.

They went against the wishes of the Clan Project and knowingly carried out the inquiry without using International best Practice Guidelines and carried out the inquiry knowing that the terms of reference did not include all Institutions and therefore could not give an accurate finding of what took place.

The Commission members are:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/commission-dealt-with-1-3m-documents-and-held-195-hearings-1.4458658?mode=amp

Chaired by
Ms Justice Yvonne Murphy

Commission director
Ita Mangan (barrister)

Principal legal researcher
Dolores Sullivan(Barrister)

Junior Counsel Researchers
Sarah Lea, 
Meg McMahon, 
Jeffrey Horahan, 
Victoria Kilfeather,
Kim McDonald, 
Charles Murray
Mark Ryan

Commission Members
Dr William Duncan, former professor of law
Prof Mary Daly, former professor of Irish history at UCD
staff member Maeve Doherty is a solicitor

Tuam Children Home Related
Donal McGuinness(Barrister)

Confidential Committee members
barristers
Kevin Healy
Lucy Scaife

Researchers
Ms Lea,
Ms McMahon, 
Roni Buckley
Maeve DeSay

Witness support officer
Nóra Ní Dhomhnaill

Other lawyers who provided services barristers 
Ellen Gleeson, 
Conor Feeney and
John Healy(Senior Counsel)

Mrsmum

Regarding the forced adoptions, can I ask a simple but brutal question - what was the girl's own plan and how could she have had any plan outside of adoption ? If a girl ended up in the m&b home, it basically meant her family wanted the problem away from them, there was no state aid at all, she couldn't stay in the home long-term as the next girl was in behind her and she herself couldn't leave the home without some plan for her baby. Imo she was up the creek without a paddle. I hear alot of the women saying the baby was taken from them but realistically what other conclusion was even open to them besides ?

James Brown

stockshares wrote: »

Joe Duffy Show today
Three stories today, one positive one with Michael a Birth Father.

However Catherine's story regarding her sister is particularly related to forced adoptions. Warning , this does bring up the subject of Suicide. It starts at 57:42 .
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/11271915

The Commission decided that these testimonies would not be heard in public and it's easy to see why they came to that decision.

They went against the wishes of the Clan Project and knowingly carried out the inquiry without using International best Practice Guidelines and carried out the inquiry knowing that the terms of reference did not include all Institutions and therefore could not give an accurate finding of what took place.

The Commission members are:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/commission-dealt-with-1-3m-documents-and-held-195-hearings-1.4458658?mode=amp

Chaired by
Ms Justice Yvonne Murphy

Commission director
Ita Mangan (barrister)

Principal legal researcher
Dolores Sullivan(Barrister)

Junior Counsel Researchers
Sarah Lea, 
Meg McMahon, 
Jeffrey Horahan, 
Victoria Kilfeather,
Kim McDonald, 
Charles Murray
Mark Ryan

Commission Members
Dr William Duncan, former professor of law
Prof Mary Daly, former professor of Irish history at UCD
staff member Maeve Doherty is a solicitor

Tuam Children Home Related
Donal McGuinness(Barrister)

Confidential Committee members
barristers
Kevin Healy
Lucy Scaife

Researchers
Ms Lea,
Ms McMahon, 
Roni Buckley
Maeve DeSay

Witness support officer
Nóra Ní Dhomhnaill

Other lawyers who provided services barristers 
Ellen Gleeson, 
Conor Feeney and
John Healy(Senior Counsel)

We should contact the International Human Rights Commission or similar body to investigate.

stockshares

Mrsmum wrote: »

Regarding the forced adoptions, can I ask a simple but brutal question - what was the girl's own plan and how could she have had any plan outside of adoption ? If a girl ended up in the m&b home, it basically meant her family wanted the problem away from them, there was no state aid at all, she couldn't stay in the home long-term as the next girl was in behind her and she herself couldn't leave the home without some plan for her baby. Imo she was up the creek without a paddle. I hear alot of the women saying the baby was taken from them but realistically what other conclusion was even open to them besides ?

So your saying the only solution was to take their child from them and that they were right to do so?

That's a Criminal Act.

It would be the same as the state/church/gardai going to a person's home today and forcibly taking their child from them because they decided amongst themselves that the person was immoral for having a child outside marriage.

James Brown

Mrsmum wrote: »

Regarding the forced adoptions, can I ask a simple but brutal question - what was the girl's own plan and how could she have had any plan outside of adoption ? If a girl ended up in the m&b home, it basically meant her family wanted the problem away from them, there was no state aid at all, she couldn't stay in the home long-term as the next girl was in behind her and she herself couldn't leave the home without some plan for her baby. Imo she was up the creek without a paddle. I hear alot of the women saying the baby was taken from them but realistically what other conclusion was even open to them besides ?

Not sell the baby. Not leave the baby to die. Not beat the mother. Not lock the mother up for several years, more in some cases. Not treat the mothers, sometime rape victims like criminals. Not disappear their babies.
That kind of thing.

In some cases the baby and/or mother were whisked away regardless of the family's wishes.
Regardless of why or how they ended up there, it does not excuse what went on does it?

Mrsmum

stockshares wrote: »

So your saying the only solution was to take their child from them and that they were right to do so?

That's a Criminal Act.

It would be the same as the state/church/gardai going to a person's home today and forcibly taking their child from them because they decided amongst themselves that the person was immoral for having a child outside marriage.

In practical terms, please tell me what choices were open to that girl at that time. I really want to know because I see zero options outside of adoption. Nothing to do with morals just in sheer practical terms. Was there some other secret place they could go to that I don't know about.

Mrsmum

Bowie wrote: »

Not sell the baby. Not leave the baby to die. Not beat the mother. Not lock the mother up for several years, more in some cases. Not treat the mothers, sometime rape victims like criminals. Not disappear their babies.
That kind of thing.

In some cases the baby and/or mother were whisked away regardless of the family's wishes.
Regardless of why or how they ended up there, it does not excuse what went on does it?

I would never condone mistreating anyone but I genuinely see no option but adoption for those mothers and babies. You can't walk out the door to walk the roads with a small baby. If your family won't help and the state offers no help ??? I would only be delighted if someone could suggest to me an alternative to adoption in the circumstances such as they were.

James Brown

Mrsmum wrote: »

I would never condone mistreating anyone but I genuinely see no option but adoption for those mothers and babies. You can't walk out the door to walk the roads with a small baby. If your family won't help and the state offers no help ??? I would only be delighted if someone could suggest to me an alternative to adoption in the circumstances such as they were.

Mrsmum wrote: »

In practical terms, please tell me what choices were open to that girl at that time. I really want to know because I see zero options outside of adoption. Nothing to do with morals just in sheer practical terms. Was there some other secret place they could go to that I don't know about.

Can I ask what your point is?
Likely they'd no option in most cases.

It's criticism of the institutions and the state that's under the spotlight. Anyone wanting to put up a child for adoption or having to, deserved better treatment. That's the discussion too, aside from forced incarceration and the stealing of babies.

Mrsmum

Bowie wrote: »

Can I ask what your point is?
Likely they'd no option in most cases.

It's criticism of the institutions and the state that's under the spotlight. Anyone wanting to put up a child for adoption or having to, deserved better treatment. That's the discussion too, aside from forced incarceration and the stealing of babies.

I know all that and I don't disagree with most of what is being said. It 's just when I hear the mothers speaking about the babies being taken, I want the journalist to ask what was your own alternative plan. Younger people out there seem to think there were alternatives and there wasn't imo which is a more complete telling of the story.

stockshares

Catherine Connolly has given an Interview on The Echo Chamber Podcast which is hosted on Tortoise Shack.

Ill post on the interview later.

https://tortoiseshack.ie/ep-346-the-mother-and-baby-home-report-with-catherine-connolly/

stockshares

Mrsmum wrote: »

I know all that and I don't disagree with most of what is being said. It 's just when I hear the mothers speaking about the babies being taken, I want the journalist to ask what was your own alternative plan. Younger people out there seem to think there were alternatives and there wasn't imo which is a more complete telling of the story.

I understand that the supports that are available now we're not there then.

If a girl was ostracised by her family and community with no financial support then Adoption in many cases was the only option available.

However there is a difference between placing a child for adoption yourself and having your child forcibly taken from you.

Many children were taken even when the family wanted to support their Child and grandchild.

It was the girl or woman's decision to make and not the Church/State.

The Church/State assumed they had total power and control over the citizens within that state.

stockshares

stockshares wrote: »

Joe Duffy Show today
Three stories today, one positive one with Michael a Birth Father.

However Catherine's story regarding her sister is particularly related to forced adoptions. Warning , this does bring up the subject of Suicide. It starts at 57:42 .
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/11271915

The Commission decided that these testimonies would not be heard in public and it's easy to see why they came to that decision.

They went against the wishes of the Clan Project and knowingly carried out the inquiry without using International best Practice Guidelines and carried out the inquiry knowing that the terms of reference did not include all Institutions and therefore could not give an accurate finding of what took place.

The Commission members are:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/commission-dealt-with-1-3m-documents-and-held-195-hearings-1.4458658?mode=amp

Chaired by
Ms Justice Yvonne Murphy

Commission director
Ita Mangan (barrister)

Principal legal researcher
Dolores Sullivan(Barrister)

Junior Counsel Researchers
Sarah Lea, 
Meg McMahon, 
Jeffrey Horahan, 
Victoria Kilfeather,
Kim McDonald, 
Charles Murray
Mark Ryan

Commission Members
Dr William Duncan, former professor of law
Prof Mary Daly, former professor of Irish history at UCD
staff member Maeve Doherty is a solicitor

Tuam Children Home Related
Donal McGuinness(Barrister)

Confidential Committee members
barristers
Kevin Healy
Lucy Scaife

Researchers
Ms Lea,
Ms McMahon, 
Roni Buckley
Maeve DeSay

Witness support officer
Nóra Ní Dhomhnaill

Other lawyers who provided services barristers 
Ellen Gleeson, 
Conor Feeney and
John Healy(Senior Counsel)

Many of the Survivors such as Noelle Brown have complained that their Testimony has been altered and that the testimony quoted in the Report is not accurate.

The Claire Byrne show asked the Commission for a reply to this and they gave her a one sentence reply

"The Commission will not be replying on this matter"

A total lack of empathy and respect shown by the people listed above .

Serious questions now on the motivation of the Commission.

ApplyLiberally

I'm surprised people aren't protesting outside of churches, well maybe when they reopen.
It would send a strong message to the church.

Nobody wants to ruin a wedding or funeral, but maybe outside of all the Sunday masses etc.

stockshares

For those that say this all took place in the past and that society is different now and we should move on.

Bessborough children were buried in unmarked graves as late as 1990

I remember Italia 90 like it was yesterday.

https://conallofatharta.wordpress.com/2018/03/06/bessborough-children-were-buried-in-unmarked-graves-as-late-as-1990/amp/?__twitter_impression=true