Mother and babies homes information sealed for 30 years

spurious

screamer wrote: »

Higgins has signed it into law now... mo naire thu a Michael.

On what constitutional basis should he have stopped it?

smurgen

a_squirrelman wrote: »

Where's the evidence they would have managed it on time?



Surely any issues can be ironed out further down the line, now that the urgency issue has been managed.

The release of the report could have been delayed to facilitate looking at the issues. The commission was operating for five years and it could have been addressed in that timeframe.

dundalkfc10

smurgen wrote: »

The release of the report could have been delayed to facilitate looking at the issues. The commission was operating for five years and it could have been addressed in that timeframe.

They know this, as usual they will agree with everything and anything the Govt tell us.

Government will breach European and Irish law by sealing mother and baby home records is still the word coming from the DPC.

The cover up is well and truely under way.

dundalkfc10

spurious wrote: »

On what constitutional basis should he have stopped it?

Well the fact the DPC have said this is illegal according to Ireland and EU law might have came into it.

I hope his family never has never had a child taking off any them when they were born and either
A. Sold
B. Giving away
C. Murdered

What a great wee country

dundalkfc10

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Well the fact the DPC have said this is illegal according to Ireland and EU law might have came into it.

I hope his family never has never had a child taking off any them when they were born and either
A. Sold
B. Giving away
C. Murdered

What a great wee country

A tad hysterical this lovely bank holiday.

If “victims” want their story told, there’s nothing stopping them telling it.

a_squirrelman

smurgen wrote: »

The release of the report could have been delayed to facilitate looking at the issues. The commission was operating for five years and it could have been addressed in that timeframe.

If the release of the report were delayed the opposition and public would be losing it just the same.

And if they had not acted by the end of the month to transfer the information to Tusla then the same outrage would be going on.

It's impossible to win, facebook/twitter outrage and media hysteria once again.

dundalkfc10

Deleted User wrote: »

A tad hysterical this lovely bank holiday.

If “victims” want their story told, there’s nothing stopping them telling it.

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

Tell that to these poor women.

A cover up, Anyone who voted for this is as bad as the Pedaphiloe ridden Church (we know they tried to cover up the Church's antics already)

Vote FF or FG just make sure you know their 3 priorities in order
1. Covering up the states past
2. Themselves
3. The people they represent

dundalkfc10

a_squirrelman wrote: »

If the release of the report were delayed the opposition and public would be losing it just the same.

And if they had not acted by the end of the month to transfer the information to Tusla then the same outrage would be going on.

It's impossible to win, facebook/twitter outrage and media hysteria once again.

Ah the old Govt gets questioned let's say its hysteria by the opposition, mediaand facebook/twitter

Well over 160,000 signatures on the petition against this. This is not the end of this

dundalkfc10

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

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

Tell that to these poor women.

A cover up, Anyone who voted for this is as bad as the Pedaphiloe ridden Church (we know they tried to cover up the Church's antics already)

Vote FF or FG just make sure you know their 3 priorities in order
1. Covering up the states past
2. Themselves
3. The people they represent

Mick Caul and Ruth Coppinger don’t represent anyone. If people want their stories heard, that’s up to them. Others just want to put it behind them and move on.

a_squirrelman

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Ah the old Govt gets questioned let's say its hysteria by the opposition, mediaand facebook/twitter

Well over 160,000 signatures on the petition against this. This is not the end of this

Yeah 160k because every numpty reads a headline, jumps to the comments, shares a random tweet on social media and contributes further to the collective dumbing down of us all.

Anyone who actually reads beyond the headlines can see this was the correct action to take.

Johnny_BravoIII

Are we clear here that this weeks vote was nothing to do with the original constitution of the enquiry which enacted a piece of legislation with a 30-year seal?

This topic is scary for the reason that it reflects we have departed from rationale debate here in Ireland. The 'outrage' culture type hysterical social media led reaction has truly taken over.
We know where this leads.

We are now in a place where truly complex issues are simplified into catchy slogans with deep rifts between partisan groupings.

'Unseal', 'repeal', 'get brexit done', 'build that wall'... etc

The majority of the dialogue on this thread bears no relation to the facts of the matter.

Its frightening.

dundalkfc10

Johnny_BravoIII wrote: »

Are we clear here that this weeks vote was nothing to do with the original constitution of the enquiry which enacted a piece of legislqtion with a 30 year seal?

This topic is scary for the reason that it reflects we have departed from rationale debate here in Ireland. The 'outrage' culture type hysterical social media led reaction has truely taken over.
We know where this leads.

We are now in a place where truly complex issuea are simplified into catchy slogans with deep rifts between partisan groupings.

'Unseal', 'repeal', 'get brexit done', 'build that wall'... etc

The majority of the dialogue on this thread bears no realtion to the facts of the matter.

Its frightening.

Your comparing this to get Brexit done and build a wall

You sir or madam are a disgrace

dundalkfc10

a_squirrelman wrote: »

Yeah 160k because every numpty reads a headline, jumps to the comments, shares a random tweet on social media and contributes further to the collective dumbing down of us all.

Anyone who actually reads beyond the headlines can see this was the correct action to take.

Well the DPC says its illegal.

Do we now only listen to the DPC when it suits what the Govt says

dundalkfc10

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Well the DPC says its illegal.

Do we now only listen to the DPC when it suits what the Govt says

What was the DPCs take on it? Did they want it destroyed rather than locked away?

a_squirrelman

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Well the DPC says its illegal.

Do we now only listen to the DPC when it suits what the Govt says

But if they will be able to access their individual information files according to GDPR then how is it illegal?

Seems it will be something that will be ironed out in the coming months. This "sealed for 30 years" shouty nonsense needs to stop, it's clear that is not the case.

dundalkfc10

a_squirrelman wrote: »

But if they will be able to access their individual information files according to GDPR then how is it illegal?

Seems it will be something that will be ironed out in the coming months. This "sealed for 30 years" shouty nonsense needs to stop, it's clear that is not the case.

https://www.thejournal.ie/tusla-slow-report-crimes-against-children-4764906-Aug2019/


https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/arid-30914276.html

Yeh Tulsa have a great record of doing what's right

Rodney Bathgate

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Your comparing this to get Brexit done and build a wall

You sir or madam are a disgrace

No, you with your feigned outrage, attempting to use the story for political gain is the disgrace. Scummy behaviour from a supporter of a scummy party. One whose ex-leader covered up far worse including his paedophile brothers antics.

Donald Trump

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/tusla-slow-report-crimes-against-children-4764906-Aug2019/


https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/arid-30914276.html

Yeh Tulsa have a great record of doing what's right

What benefit will you get from potentially destroying the lives of some old ladies by outing the secret burden they have carried all their lives already

dundalkfc10

Donald Trump wrote: »

What benefit will you get from potentially destroying the lives of some old ladies by outing the secret burden they have carried all their lives already

I won't get any, but my relation might get to find out who her kid is after the Church/State took him away 10 mins after he was born.

Everything needs out and open, we can then know who done what and if they are still alive, punished to the full extent of the law.

screamer

screamer wrote: »

Higgins has signed it into law now... mo naire thu a Michael.

Higgins the nodding donkey, FF & FG (aided and abetted by fundamentally useless Greens) want to bury some unpalatable truths. There are no winners here in this act of political cowardice, rushed through to take advantage of Covid dominating the airwaves.

dundalkfc10

Deleted User wrote: »

Higgins the nodding donkey, FF & FG (aided and abetted by fundamentally useless Greens) want to bury some unpalatable truths. There are no winners here in this act of political cowardice, rushed through to take advantage of Covid dominating the airwaves.

Scum will be scum. From trying to hide the Church's abuse of poor boys over the years to this.

The FF and FG way

Donald Trump

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

I won't get any, but my relation might get to find out who her kid is after the Church/State took him away 10 mins after he was born.

Everything needs out and open, we can then know who done what and if they are still alive, punished to the full extent of the law.

With all due respect, you don't know the full details of what happened in any specific case anymore than I would (which is zero). There may be some details left out in what you have been told.



If someone willingly gives their baby up for adoption and the new parents adopt that child and bring it up as their own, it would not be fair if the biological parent later changes their mind and arrives on the doorstep for the child's eight birthday wanting to tell them they are adopted.



Biological parent wants to contact child. Adoptive parents don't want to tell child they are adopted. Child is caught in the middle and potentially about to have their world as they know it upended. Even later on when the child is grown up. The adoptive parents might not want to tell them they aren't its "real" parents

Johnny_BravoIII

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Your comparing this to get Brexit done and build a wall

You sir or madam are a disgrace

You see, the thing is, when you make these types of claims, you turn all rational thinking people away from your point of view.

It's quite clear I'm not comparing Brexit with the mother and baby homes.
What you are doing here is manipulating the point above, to suit your narrative and then becoming doubly-outraged against a point you have made your self. A point which I didn't make. Can you see why this is dishonest?

The reason this is important is that this is what you are doing the same with the 'mother and baby homes' topic. You are not dealing with reality. You are manipulating/interpreting reality into something which outrages you.

It's a form of madness.

Can you see why you are typical of this new type of 'outrage' culture?

smurgen

a_squirrelman wrote: »

If the release of the report were delayed the opposition and public would be losing it just the same.

And if they had not acted by the end of the month to transfer the information to Tusla then the same outrage would be going on.

It's impossible to win, facebook/twitter outrage and media hysteria once again.

It's been delayed numerous times and I didn't see outrage can you link some?

Johnny_BravoIII

Donald Trump wrote: »

With all due respect, you don't know the full details of what happened in any specific case anymore than I would (which is zero). There may be some details left out in what you have been told.



If someone willingly gives their baby up for adoption and the new parents adopt that child and bring it up as their own, it would not be fair if the biological parent later changes their mind and arrives on the doorstep for the child's eight birthday wanting to tell them they are adopted.



Biological parent wants to contact child. Adoptive parents don't want to tell child they are adopted. Child is caught in the middle and potentially about to have their world as they know it upended. Even later on when the child is grown up. The adoptive parents might not want to tell them they aren't its "real" parents

This topic is deeply complex.
But we are no longer allowed to deal with complexity.
The conversation is now either you are of the "unseal" grouping or you are of the heartless 'mother and baby' prosecutor party.

smurgen

Johnny_BravoIII wrote: »

This topic is deeply complex.
But we are no longer allowed to deal with complexity.
The conversation is now either you are of the "unseal" grouping or you are of the heartless 'mother and baby' prosecutor party.

The time to debate it was when they wanted to consider amendments in the dail. However Roderic O'Gorman flat out refused to do this saying simply"no".

No debate no amendments. His answer is here.

https://twitter.com/SocDems/status/1319296907416514565?s=09

VillageIdiot71

Vetch wrote: »

Any report I've seen refers to the Minister relying on the 2004 Act to close the archive. Where did you see reference to the 2018 Act?

Lots of places. They mean the 2004 Act as amended. How do you think an Act passed in 2004 could anticipate GDPR before it existed?



https://www.broadsheet.ie/tag/roderic-ogorman/

"
O’Gorman: “Yeah and I would have, in the normal course, expected that GDPR would apply to the archives. But when the GDPR was introduced in Ireland in 2018, the commission of investigations legislation, that 2004 act, was amended to explicitly exclude GDPR from applying to the commission’s archive. So the act was explicit, that was done explicitly in 2018. Now I wasn’t in the Oireachtas at that point so I don’t know the thinking behind that. But that very explicit exclusion is what prevents the application of GDPR in this situation…”

VillageIdiot71

Donald Trump wrote: »

With all due respect, you don't know the full details of what happened in any specific case anymore than I would (which is zero). There may be some details left out in what you have been told.

I guess one aspect that won't get airplay is that our way of dealing with equivalent cases today is abortion.

dundalkfc10

Michael D the sell out could have done something else if he felt it was the right thing to do.

He could have resigned without signing it

dundalkfc10

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Michael D the sell out could have done something else if he felt it was the right thing to do.

He could have resigned without signing it

Not a chance Twee would trade in a cushy number for basic principle. As we've seen with Maria Bailey, there is a prevailing culture of entitlement among certain circles. FF and FG won't rock the boat with their conservative voter base, it's in their financial interest to stay in office and keep the wheelbarrow of money loaded. The mother and baby homes issue is a trifling inconvenience to be kicked down the road for future politicians to handle.

spurious

..and they say CSPE was a joke subject.

The President cannot stop legislation 'because he doesn't like it'.

SEPT 23 1989

The selling of children to rich couples is a nasty international scale can of worms they don't want to open

And now our president is complicit in the scandal

dundalkfc10

spurious wrote: »

..and they say CSPE was a joke subject.

The President cannot stop legislation 'because he doesn't like it'.

No but if he had morals he would have resigned refusing to sign it.

suicide_circus

The man is a glorified rubber stamp, it's not his role to think.

skooterblue2

spurious wrote: »

..and they say CSPE was a joke subject.

The President cannot stop legislation 'because he doesn't like it'.

Correct but if he feels it is unconstitutional he can refer it to supreme court to test its constitutionality and then if not to the people in a referendum

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

The man is a glorified rubber stamp, it's not his role to think.

The President is supposed to be the conscience of the Nation not a rubber stamp and should refuse to sign legislation which doesn't protect the nation even if it means resigning their post as a consequence.

VillageIdiot71

Useful post from legal forum, which throws a little light on what the Minister might mean when he says GDPR was prohibited by the 2018 amending legislation.

Peregrinus wrote: »

GDPR itself allows member states to restrict the scope of GDPR obligations and rights "when such a restriction respects the essence of the fundamental rights and freedoms and is a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society to safeguard [a long list of public policy considerations]". Check out Article 23.

So the argument is that the Oireachtas is not "prohibiting" GDPR. They are prohibiting access to [certain] information under Art 15 of GDPR, and they are allowed to do this by Art 23 of GDPR.

suicide_circus

Deleted User wrote: »

The President is supposed to be the conscience of the Nation not a rubber stamp and should refuse to sign legislation which doesn't protect the nation even if it means resigning their post as a consequence.

You expect him to make those kind of decisions on a piddling €250,000 a year?

Cluedo Monopoly

https://twitter.com/marywallopers/status/1320442257397424134

smurgen

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Useful post from legal forum, which throws a little light on what the Minister might mean when he says GDPR was prohibited by the 2018 amending legislation.

Which part of Article 23? Seems to be solicitors in data compliance such as Simon McGarr that have inspected this and do not agree. See below

https://twitter.com/Tupp_Ed/status/1319430803487662081?s=19

skooterblue2

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The selling of children to rich couples is a nasty international scale can of worms they don't want to open

And now our president is complicit in the scandal

It always has happened and it always will where you have one vulnerable unprotected mother and one wealthy couple willing to pay over the odds and a middle man in between.

Cluedo Monopoly

And we can all trust Tusla to provide personal data to the mothers and the children...

https://twitter.com/BarbaraMcMahon8/status/1320467082128089093/photo/1

skooterblue2

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

And we can all trust Tusla to provide personal data to the mothers and the children...

https://twitter.com/BarbaraMcMahon8/status/1320467082128089093/photo/1

Tusla are the same types of women as the disaffected nuns 70 years ago only in different garbs.

SEPT 23 1989

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The selling of children to rich couples is a nasty international scale can of worms they don't want to open

And now our president is complicit in the scandal

Ireland isn’t alone in “selling” unwanted babies. Russia was doing it until recently.

Cluedo Monopoly

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Tusla are the same types of women as the disaffected nuns 70 years ago only in different garbs.

Yes and you get the strong sense that FF and FG want to continue aiding and abetting because history does not reflect well on those 2 parties or their past TDs/Ministers.

Johnny_BravoIII

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Michael D the sell out could have done something else if he felt it was the right thing to do.

He could have resigned without signing it

OK, so do you understand that the legislation was required to protect the information?

Your asking that the president of Ireland resigns instead of signing a piece of legislation that protects the information collected during the enquiry into the mother and baby homes.

Can you see why people would choose to not consider any reasonable point (if any) that you might make?

" This feeling of not liking, this feeling of disgust...This feeling isn't an argument, it isn't or shouldn't be the basis for your believing anything is true or false about the world. Your capacity to be offended isn't something that I or anybody should respect. You capacity to be offended isn't something that you should respect. In fact, it's something that you should be on your guard for, perhaps more than any other property of your mind. This feeling can mislead you. If you care about justice, and you absolutely should, you should care about facts and the ability to discuss them openly. Justice requires contact with reality. It simply isn't the case, it cannot be the case that the most pressing claims on our sense of social justice need come from those who claim to be most offended by conversation itself"

Sam Harris

Cluedo Monopoly

Deleted User wrote: »

Ireland isn’t alone in “selling” unwanted babies. Russia was doing it until recently.

Wow.

Would you prefer if we did not discuss our past or get justice/answers for those women and children?

dundalkfc10

Deleted User wrote: »

Ireland isn’t alone in “selling” unwanted babies. Russia was doing it until recently.

What has this got to do with Russia?

What relevance has that to this?

Deflect is it Maryanne.

dundalkfc10

Johnny_BravoIII wrote: »

OK, so do you understand that the legislation was required to protect the information?

Your asking that the president of Ireland resigns instead of signing a piece of legislation that protects the information collected during the enquiry into the mother and baby homes.

Can you see why people would choose to not consider any reasonable point (if any) that you might make?

https://twitter.com/Tupp_Ed/status/1319429857680478212?s=19

Cluedo Monopoly

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

Wow.

Would you prefer if we did not discuss our past or get justice/answers for those women and children?

There’s nothing stopping the women who want to talk about their situations from doing so. That’s not the issue. It’s not unusual for birth mothers to not want any contact with their child. Should that contact be forced on them? No it should not.