Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ongoing religious scandals
Options
Comments
-
Absolutely, it is lacking, and for good reason. Were the state to do this, the people who would suffer most would not be the church; it would be the victims, or many of them. The whole point of the redress scheme was to provide more rapid and more effective redress than could be obtained by thousands of individual court actions against a variety of Catholic religious orders. The State can't abandon the redress scheme without recreating the problem that the redress scheme was supposed to solve.The point is, the state can shut down the current scheme (Caranua) at any time, and say to people you must go and sue the religious order/RCC/ and/or their insurers, instead. The church indemnity no longer applies at this stage. It seems the political will for any such action is lacking though.0 -
It looks to me like an application for compensation would have to be made during the original 3 year period, to the original Redress Board, if it was to be covered by the original indemnity.What do you think lacks clarity? Which of the schemes you're talking about isn't covered by 'any determination of a Court, or Court award or settlement in respect of any action arising out of the same circumstances as gave rise to an application to the Redress Board', but does include the eighteen Congregations as specified in the indemnity?
I'm not saying the indemnity was never extended voluntarily by the state party. Just that it isn't clear whether it was, and if so, why.
Thats the impression you get from reading the website alright. But we know that far more has already been spent by the Redress Schemes than was ever received (or even pledged) by the religious orders. The annual reports of Caranua keep repeating the mantra about the...100% of the money disbursed by Caranua comes from the Congregations; the very purpose of Caranua is to disburse funds pledged by the Congregations, not the government.
But only the accounts of 2013 are published, and the start-up money seems to have come from the NTMA (the exchequer) and VEC.cash contributions of up to €110m pledged by the religious Congregations
Falls a bit short of the €1.5 Billion estimated cost though, doesn't it? I think that's less than 5% of it.They've handed over €85m of that so far by the way, and Caranua has spent €41m of it.0 -
There were two problems that it solved. It was originally designed to;Peregrinus wrote: »The State can't abandon the redress scheme without recreating the problem that the redress scheme was supposed to solve.
1. Make it easier for the victims and their lawyers to get hold of the money.
2. Prevent the awful spectre of bankruptcy/financial ruin for RC institutions from becoming a reality.0 -
Why? The document you linked clearly shows that the indemnity period is extended along with the statutory period, and you've shown that statutory period being extended more than once. The fact that you don't know something didn't happen doesn't make it unclear, it just means you're seeking refuge in speculating about something you say you don't know anything about.It looks to me like an application for compensation would have to be made during the original 3 year period, to the original Redress Board, if it was to be covered by the original indemnity.
I'm not saying the indemnity was never extended voluntarily by the state party. Just that it isn't clear whether it was, and if so, why.
So, had you even looked at their website before posting you'd know that your claim "The state is 100% liable for awards made through Caranua because it has voluntarily set up that scheme and accepted 100% of any resulting liabilities. But it has asked the RCC to voluntarily accept 50% of those liabilities." was complete and utter manufactured nonsense? Amazing how much clarity can be achieved with just a moments effort....Thats the impression you get from reading the website alright.
Well, we wouldn't want to confuse your impressions with facts, we might end up speculating that things have happened just because you're not aware of evidence they didn't.... And we certainly wouldn't want to confuse all of the money that has been spend on redress schemes with the specific sum of money a particular fund has been created to disburse, because that would be misleading. Posters might get confused and imagine there's a lack of clarity, even.But we know that far more has already been spent by the Redress Schemes than was ever received (or even pledged) by the religious orders.
I don't think any of the Congregations pledged money for set up costs, did they? And like I say, according to Carauna's 2015 report, they've disbursed €41m of the €85m they've received so far from the Congregations. It's hard to believe your conspiracy theory extends as far as Carauna putting false figures in their public Annual Reports which won't be backed up by their acccounts when published, but given everything else you've posted I suppose it has to be asked.... does it?The annual reports of Caranua keep repeating the mantra about the...cash contributions of up to €110m pledged by the religious Congregations But only the accounts of 2013 are published, and the start-up money seems to have come from the NTMA (the exchequer) and VEC.
So... you're concerned the voluntary pledges the Congregations have made to supporting one particular fund are short of the overall cost of redress? I suppose that's a step forward from imagining the State has accepted 100% of the liabilities from it and it should be shut down so sufferers could pursue the Congregations through the Courts instead.Falls a bit short of the €1.5 Billion estimated cost though, doesn't it? I think that's less than 5% of it.0 -
These are actually the same objective, if you think about it, since the consequence of bankruptcy is that creditors don't get their money. So the RC institutions and the victims might have had different reasons for wishing to avert the bankruptcy of any of the institutions, but they both wished to avert the bankruptcy of any of the institutions.There were two problems that it solved. It was originally designed to;
1. Make it easier for the victims and their lawyers to get hold of the money.
2. Prevent the awful spectre of bankruptcy/financial ruin for RC institutions from becoming a reality.0 -
Advertisement
-
A lot more than the €110M they pledged in cash and property (or the €85 Absolam says they have actually stumped up so far) could have been squeezed out of them before they went bankrupt.Peregrinus wrote: »..the consequence of bankruptcy is that creditors don't get their money...
Following bankruptcy, the state could have stepped in with its exchequer funded Redress scheme.0 -
My point is that there was no contractual necessity for the state to keep extending the statutary period and hence the indemnity. The fact that the state volunteered to keep the scheme going, and keeps paying out money, means that de facto an indemnity is still being provided. That would be the situation even without any kind of contract.Why? The document you linked clearly shows that the indemnity period is extended along with the statutory period, and you've shown that statutory period being extended more than once.
As Peregrinus has pointed out, this is probably more due to the state wanting to provide for vulnerable people who have been wronged, than to a desire to protect the financial interests of the mother church at taxpayers expense.
Nevertheless, I think there is also an element of the latter.
Also it should be borne in mind that the state was in cahoots with the RCC in facilitating and operating that whole industrial schools system of yesteryear. Hence the state does have a share of the liability.
But in fairness, I don't see how it could reasonably be said that the state's liability could ever exceed 50%, seeing as it was only acting at arms length.0 -
That's flat out untrue. Your point was "the important question of whether the indemnity itself was extended is somewhat murky. I think probably not.". And now you're saying that it was extended but the State wasn't obliged to do so? Sure, the State could have refused the extend the period in which victims could make claims and thereby not extend the indemnity, but the indemnity was from the outset tied to the claims. Would you really have prevented people from bringing claims in order so that there would be none for the Congregations to be indemnified against? Seems like your logic is just targetting the people who were hurt by this; don't allow them to make claims and shut down funds providing additional assistance to them. Very odd the lengths you'd go to just to feel you're getting a pop in at the religious.My point is that there was no contractual necessity for the state to keep extending the statutary period and hence the indemnity. The fact that the state volunteered to keep the scheme going, and keeps paying out money, means that de facto an indemnity is still being provided. That would be the situation even without any kind of contract.
Sounds like more nonsense to me; the State extended the facility for people to claim for abuse they suffered, that's laudable. That they did it knowing that they wouldn't be able to legally recoup the money from the Congregations only means they did the right thing regardless; there's no reason whatsoever to imagine there was a desire to protect the financial interests of the mother church at taxpayers expense, since anyone involved in the process knew the Congregations were already indemnified.As Peregrinus has pointed out, this is probably more due to the state wanting to provide for vulnerable people who have been wronged, than to a desire to protect the financial interests of the mother church at taxpayers expense.
Nevertheless, I think there is also an element of the latter.
Well... it should be borne in mind that the State wasn't in cahoots with the CC in facilitating and operating that whole industrial schools system of yesteryear; industrial schools were established under British rule, and in their day the combination of voluntary effort and private management, with State regulation and support were considered successful. That the Irish State continued to regulate and support the remaining schools is hardly surprising, and it is it's role in regulating those schools from which it's liability for abuses in them arises.Also it should be borne in mind that the state was in cahoots with the RCC in facilitating and operating that whole industrial schools system of yesteryear. Hence the state does have a share of the liability.
In fairness, you may be deliberately conflating different things here again; it can be reasonably said that the State entered a legal agreement making it liable for all claims of abuse in specified facilities over the €128 million provided by the Congregations. That liability manifestly extends to far far more than 50% of the cost, because of the agreement the State made. It's liabilty for other abuses isn't covered under that agreement, and religious organisations aren't indemnified by the agreement for other abuses.But in fairness, I don't see how it could reasonably be said that the state's liability could ever exceed 50%, seeing as it was only acting at arms length.0 -
Its true they were established under British Law, but they were a 19th century solution to a particular problem. They were phased out in Britain during the early 20th century, but in Ireland the fledgling state was under the influence of the RCC and so they were actually expanded upon instead of being closed. The state has some level of liability because of this collusion... industrial schools were established under British rule, and in their day the combination of voluntary effort and private management, with State regulation and support were considered successful. That the Irish State continued to regulate and support the remaining schools is hardly surprising1924 The new state’s Department of Education noted that there were more children in industrial schools in the Irish Free State than in all of the United Kingdom.
1929 The Children’s Act was amended to allow destitute children to be sent to industrial schools, even if they hadn’t committed a crime.
1933 The statutory regulations governing industrial schools were updated and funding was increased.
1933 The Commission of Inquiry Into Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions found only 350 of the children in industrial schools were orphans (5.3 % of the total)
1933 Industrial schools were abolished in the UK but not in Ireland.
I'm saying that its liability because of the original agreement only lasted for 3 years. Since then the agreement has been irrelevant. The state chose to keep paying out since then, so the religious orders didn't have to. In effect the state continues to indemnify the religious orders for as long as it keeps paying out, but this is not because the state was somehow "trapped" into a bad contract in 2002, which bound it until the end of time.In fairness, you may be deliberately conflating different things here again; it can be reasonably said that the State entered a legal agreement making it liable for all claims of abuse in specified facilities over the €128 million provided by the Congregations. That liability manifestly extends to far far more than 50% of the cost, because of the agreement the State made.
The other question is whether the state could sue the religious for reimbursement of some portion of the Redress money, post 2005. You're saying no, the legal indemnity carried forward each time. I'm saying I don't know. The option was there each time to make it clear in the legislation whether the legal indemnity was being carried forward, or only the compensation scheme was. Anyway its a moot point; if the state wishes to continue paying the lions share, it can, whether or not it is obliged to.0 -
I think the issue here is that, if the matter went to court and it was found that liablity was shared between (a) the state, and (b) some Catholic religious order or institution, under existing principles that liabily is joint, meaning that the victim can pursue either or both of the defendants, and recover their judgement in full from whichever of them has the deepest pockets. Which, of course, is the State.As Peregrinus has pointed out, this is probably more due to the state wanting to provide for vulnerable people who have been wronged, than to a desire to protect the financial interests of the mother church at taxpayers expense.
Nevertheless, I think there is also an element of the latter.
Also it should be borne in mind that the state was in cahoots with the RCC in facilitating and operating that whole industrial schools system of yesteryear. Hence the state does have a share of the liability.
But in fairness, I don't see how it could reasonably be said that the state's liability could ever exceed 50%, seeing as it was only acting at arms length.
As between the two defendants, they can agree among themselves how the cost is to be shared, and if they can't agree they can head off to court and get the court to rule on it, but this doesn't affect the victim. Even if the court rules that liability is shared 50/50 (or in any other proportions), the victim can still recover 100% of his judgment from the State, and it's then up to the State to try to recover the appropriate proportion from the religious institution. Which is pointless, of course, if the religious institution is insolvent.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think I'd want a bit more than the allegation of being under someones influence before I accepted a charge of collusion (and your link doesn't even support the allegation, never mind the charge), especially if it was intended to be a basis for liability. And I really don't think you're up to providing that... but like I said, the State was actually (as in factually, established in legislation, not a feature of alleged influence) responsible for regulating the Industrial Schools, and from that responsibility the State's liability arises. Nothing to do with the influence of Catholic or Protestant Churches.Its true they were established under British Law, but they were a 19th century solution to a particular problem. They were phased out in Britain during the early 20th century, but in Ireland the fledgling state was under the influence of the RCC and so they were actually expanded upon instead of being closed. The state has some level of liability because of this collusion.
No, the original agreement never limited the State's liability in any way, and whether or not the State kept paying out made no difference to whether the religious orders would have to, because they were indemnified against any claims based on the criteria in the agreement. There's no 'in effect'; it is all set out in the agreement.I'm saying that its liability because of the original agreement only lasted for 3 years. Since then the agreement has been irrelevant. The state chose to keep paying out since then, so the religious orders didn't have to. In effect the state continues to indemnify the religious orders for as long as it keeps paying out, but this is not because the state was somehow "trapped" into a bad contract in 2002, which bound it until the end of time.
The fact that you don't know doesn't mean it wasn't clear though; the original agreement makes the extent of the indemnity perfectly clear, and extending the statutory time did not afford an opportunity to change the agreement; the agreement already covered such extensions. The idea that the State might wish to continue paying the lions share whether or not it is obliged to is pretty silly... almost as silly as your saying they can if they want. As if your saying they can't would make a difference?The other question is whether the state could sue the religious for reimbursement of some portion of the Redress money, post 2005. You're saying no, the legal indemnity carried forward each time. I'm saying I don't know. The option was there each time to make it clear in the legislation whether the legal indemnity was being carried forward, or only the compensation scheme was. Anyway its a moot point; if the state wishes to continue paying the lions share, it can, whether or not it is obliged to.0 -
And which insolvency would arise because the institution had given a small portion of its assets to the state, and pooled most of its assets into a Trust where they were inextricably merged with the assets of other institutions.Peregrinus wrote: »the victim can still recover 100% of his judgment from the State, and it's then up to the State to try to recover the appropriate proportion from the religious institution. Which is pointless, of course, if the religious institution is insolvent.
Leaving it with little or nothing to call its own.0 -
Well, would seems a bit strong... you're speculating, aren't you? So might seems much more appropriate, especially since the last time you claimed this had been done you failed to provide any evidence for it, and your idea of inextricable merging was shown to be lacking in merit too....And which insolvency would arise because the institution had given a small portion of its assets to the state, and pooled most of its assets into a Trust where they were inextricably merged with the assets of other institutions. Leaving it with little or nothing to call its own.0 -
You're making this stuff up as you go along, rec. We've been through his before, but every time I explain it to you you seem to have forgotten a couple of weeks later. In the first place, given the scale of the abuse that went on, and therefore the scale of the liabilities, and given that many of the particular institutions involved were always quite small, in terms of assets, in many cases insolvency would arise whether or not any assets had been transferred to trusts. In the second place, it's b@lls on a pointy stick to claim that the transferred assets were "inextricably merged" with those of other institutions. The assets are mostly land; land is always identifiable, it never becomes "inextricably merged" with other land; if you can show that the purpose of the transfer of a particular institution's land to a trust was to defeat creditors of the insititution you can get the transfer set aside. This kind of stuff is bankruptcy 101, really.And which insolvency would arise because the institution had given a small portion of its assets to the state, and pooled most of its assets into a Trust where they were inextricably merged with the assets of other institutions.
Leaving it with little or nothing to call its own.0 -
There is no great political will to seize these assets anyway. Put a few extra obstacles in the way, by transferring assets into Trust X or Y, and that ensures the state will not even try to seize them. It will never happen.
Public perception is everything. People think that the religious orders who ran the Christian Brothers schools and the Magdalene laundries are virtually gone now, and that there are only a few elderly brothers or nuns left, with just enough money to provide for their own healthcare until the end of their days. And this may be technically correct, but the bulk of their former assets are now controlled by trusts whose mandate is to continue their ethos.
In the case of schools, ownership of those title deeds is a vital leveraging tool, because it allows the trusts to draw ongoing state funding for the running costs, while maintaining their preferred "ethos".0 -
No one is interested in engaging in the nonsensical illegal activity you're proposing? That can hardly come as a surprise though, can it? Making you your own reasons for why people might not be doing the things you think they ought to be doing just leads you further away from engaging with reality.There is no great political will to seize these assets anyway. Put a few extra obstacles in the way, by transferring assets into Trust X or Y, and that ensures the state will not even try to seize them. It will never happen.
Well.. I'd say the law is a tad more important than public perception for those engaged with legal issues (like seizing other peoples property), and I suspect continuing the mission of educating youth would be more important to organisations like the Christian Brother than public perception. But sure, public perception is everything to those who consider it everything; though a lot of people would consider such a view on life to be quite a shallow one I'd say.Public perception is everything. People think that the religious orders who ran the Christian Brothers schools and the Magdalene laundries are virtually gone now, and that there are only a few elderly brothers or nuns left, with just enough money to provide for their own healthcare until the end of their days. And this may be technically correct, but the bulk of their former assets are now controlled by trusts whose mandate is to continue their ethos.
So... you're saying that a Trust such as the Edmund Rice Schools Trust whose mission is to provide Catholic education in the Edmund Rice tradition is using assets (such as properties) that it controls in order to run schools that provide Catholic education in the Edmund Rice tradition, and it avails of State funding to do so like all other school Patrons? Shocking stuff indeed. What nefarious things will they think of next.In the case of schools, ownership of those title deeds is a vital leveraging tool, because it allows the trusts to draw ongoing state funding for the running costs, while maintaining their preferred "ethos".0 -
This reminds me of the Simpson's episode in which Lisa tries to illustrate the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy by pointing out to her father that "By your logic, I could claim this rock keeps tigers away". Homer promptly offers to buy the rock.There is no great political will to seize these assets anyway. Put a few extra obstacles in the way, by transferring assets into Trust X or Y, and that ensures the state will not even try to seize them. It will never happen.
Nobody's trying to seize the assets, Rec. There is no legal basis for doing so. It would be a crime. Even the dumbest populist politician can see how this would play out. The transfer of assets into trusts doesn't protect them from a seizure with which they are not threatened in the first place, and it's conspiracy-theory level thinking to think that the transfer is in any way motivated by a desire to avoid seizure. There are rational, coherent, evidence-based explanations for the transfers of assets into trusts. You've heard them before.0 -
The existence of CAB shows that the state can seize the proceeds of criminal activity, and the abuse was carried out during a time when the residential institutions were being paid by the state to care for the victims. Hence that money was acquired under false pretenses, while criminal abuse was going on.Peregrinus wrote: »This reminds me of the Simpson's episode in which Lisa tries to illustrate the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy by pointing out to her father that "By your logic, I could claim this rock keeps tigers away". Homer promptly offers to buy the rock.
Nobody's trying to seize the assets, Rec. There is no legal basis for doing so. It would be a crime.
Also there may be the possibility of the state putting a lien on the properties. I don't claim to know all the legal remedies. I am agnostic on that point, but not totally ignorant.
Now, you're saying the assets being moved into legal trusts at the time the abuse came to light was just a Simpson-esque coinkydinks. Maybe so.
Lets look at the timeline again;
1. Ryan Commission set up in 1999.
Various scandals drip-fed and leaked to the media over the following years.
2. Redress board set up in 2002.
It gradually became apparent that the church and/or the state was facing a massive Redress bill, much larger than was thought at first.
3. 2008; Christian Brothers and various other orders directly involved in the abuse shift their principle assets into the Rice trust in 2008. Where the assets are combined and effectively laundered so that the individual religious orders themselves can claim to be virtually penniless.
4. Ryan Commission releases its full report in 2009.
Hmmm...was all that legal maneuvering really just a coinkydinks?
Now, remember the Louise O'Keeffe case. She attempted to sue both the state and the Christian Brothers for the abuse she received. As it was a school and not a residential institution, the Redress scheme did not apply to her. Even so, the principles involved are the same.
She was denied justice in Ireland. The state asked the High Court to rule that the state party was not "vicariously liable", which the court did. But later that was overruled by a European Court ruling to the contrary.
Then you have somebody like Justice Kelly here as the govt. appointed President of the High Court. And also, by amazing coinkydinks, he happened to be the Chairman of the Edmund Rice Trust, which protects the former Christian Brothers assets.
So its this tangled web of collusion between the state, the church, and a govt. appointed judiciary which is at the heart of the problem. We don't have a proper Separation of Powers between the executive arm of the state (govt.) and the judiciary. Nor do we have a proper separation between church and state, as can be evidenced by the former and current involvement of the state in funding religious schools and institutions.
Both of these separations are considered by many to be vital to the correct functioning of a modern enlightened republic.
That's why there is a lack of political will by the state to tackle the church. Its the multiple conflicts and overlapping of interests. Its not the "legal difficulties" thrown up by supposedly bulletproof indemnities and/or legal trusts.0 -
That sounds vaguely like a familiar argument previously proven wrong...The existence of CAB shows that the state can seize the proceeds of criminal activity, and the abuse was carried out during a time when the residential institutions were being paid by the state to care for the victims. Hence that money was acquired under false pretenses, while criminal abuse was going on. Also there may be the possibility of the state putting a lien on the properties. I don't claim to know all the legal remedies. I am agnostic on that point, but not totally ignorant.
And that one didn't work out the last time you tried it either.Now, you're saying the assets being moved into legal trusts at the time the abuse came to light was just a Simpson-esque coinkydinks. Maybe so.
Lets look at the timeline again;
1. Ryan Commission set up in 1999.
Various scandals drip-fed and leaked to the media over the following years.
2. Redress board set up in 2002.
It gradually became apparent that the church and/or the state was facing a massive Redress bill, much larger than was thought at first.
3. 2008; Christian Brothers and various other orders directly involved in the abuse shift their principle assets into the Rice trust in 2008. Where the assets are combined and effectively laundered so that the individual religious orders themselves can claim to be virtually penniless.
4. Ryan Commission releases its full report in 2009.
Hmmm...was all that legal maneuvering really just a coinkydinks?Now, remember the Louise O'Keeffe case. She attempted to sue both the state and the Christian Brothers for the abuse she received. As it was a school and not a residential institution, the Redress scheme did not apply to her. Even so, the principles involved are the same. She was denied justice in Ireland. The state asked the High Court to rule that the state party was not "vicariously liable", which the court did. But later that was overruled by a European Court ruling to the contrary.
And wasn't that one busted in the exact same post?
And oddly enough this one too...Then you have somebody like Justice Kelly here as the govt. appointed President of the High Court. And also, by amazing coinkydinks, he happened to be the Chairman of the Edmund Rice Trust, which protects the former Christian Brothers assets.
Or... perhaps the heart of the problem is an inability to accept that your conspiracy theories are just that? The facts don't go away if you just wait a while and trundle out the same nonsense again, they're still there I'm afraid.So its this tangled web of collusion between the state, the church, and a govt. appointed judiciary which is at the heart of the problem. We don't have a proper Separation of Powers between the executive arm of the state (govt.) and the judiciary. Nor do we have a proper separation between church and state, as can be evidenced by the former and current involvement of the state in funding religious schools and institutions. Both of these separations are considered by many to be vital to the correct functioning of a modern enlightened republic.
No... there's no political will to do what you want to do because it's nonsense. It's really that simple.That's why there is a lack of political will by the state to tackle the church. Its the multiple conflicts and overlapping of interests. Its not the "legal difficulties" thrown up by supposedly bulletproof indemnities and/or legal trusts.0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26383
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/10/17/the-known-unknown/Your readers might be interested in this podcast around sexual abuse published today by Irish History Podcast. It’s not easy listening, but in the context of what it explore and uncovers, it’s necessary listening.
It includes information on how conservative Catholic activists acted in the 1980s to shut down Department of Education research into the nature and scale of abuse experienced by school kids in the family home.
From 8.33min in… “In 1981, the Department of Education surveyed school children and the results revealed child sexual abuse to be a considerable problem. However, in January 1982, Christina Bhean Ui Chribin and Una Bhean Ui Mhathuna took court action to prevent the department conducting further surveys. These women, deeply conservative catholic activists, reflected a view held by many in Irish society that the safest place for children was in the traditional family home.”
Listen here http://irishhistorypodcast.ie/raftery/0 -
Advertisement
-
Not disputing the accuracy of the podcast, but the podast (as quoted) leaves out the most salient information; what was the outcome of the court action that was taken?
Does anyone know? Does anyone have more detail on this particular court case?0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 26383
More info about one of the people who took the case https://comeheretome.com/2012/07/29/una-bean-mhic-mhathuna-40-years-of-reactionary-politics/0 -
Thanks for that Cabaal. Relevantly to the claim made in the broadcast, the report does say that Mhic Mathuna and Cribben were refused the High Court injunction that they sought to restrain the Dept of Ed investigations. Which is not to say that the mere fact that they took proceedings might not have had a somewhat chilling effect on the Dept of Ed, but that's not what the podcast appears to say.0
-
In Rome, Australian police have interviewed Cardinal Pell, Pope Frank's head of finance, "regarding allegations of sexual assault”. Pell has denied the allegations and suggested that there is a conspiracy against him.
http://www.thejournal.ie/cardinal-george-pel-3046333-Oct2016/
Pell was the guy who famously said that the RCC had "mucked up" in how the RCC dealt with pedophile priests. He also appeared on Australian telly where he made a most peculiar admission, and Dawkins produced what must have been his widest-ever grin:
0 -
-
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/ex-church-of-ireland-volunteer-jailed-for-sex-assaults-on-boys-1.2862790Ex-Church of Ireland volunteer jailed for sex assaults on boys
A former lay worker with the Church of Ireland has been jailed for 13 years for raping and molesting 14 boys over 40 years.
Patrick O’Brien (76) pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to 48 sample counts of indecent assault and three counts of sexual assault between 1974 and 2013. The abuse occurred at many locations throughout the State, including on a boat at Loughrea, Co Galway, and at St Patrick’s Cathedral in Dublin, where he worked as a volunteer.Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Paedo; "I'd like to work with the kids. I'll hang out with them, take them on camping trips, that sort of stuff. I don't require any money."
Church; "No money you say. Hmmm... OK you're hired."0 -
Isn't that the entire basis of the scouting movement?0
-
Apart from the description of volunteers as paedos? To a vanishingly large degree... yes, scout/cub/beaver leaders are indeed people who want to work with the kids, hang out with them, take them on camping trips, that sort of stuff, and don't require any money.Peregrinus wrote: »Isn't that the entire basis of the scouting movement?0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes.
No offence, rec, but your post suggests that, if there was a financial motive involved, somebody's desire to work with kids would somehow be purified. But if there's no financial motive, then it's suspect.
That strikes me as a very unhealthy basis on which to build the protection of kids. Just sayin'.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN-EnjnwrSA
Advertisement