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

childrens Referendum **poll added**

Options
1…910121415…24

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    Gotham
    Registered Users Posts: 406 ✭✭Gotham


    Am I the only one who thinks this referendum is some kind of distraction?

    I agree that it should be passed, but do we have to have it now when the country has no money? How about a referendum on where my tax money goes!
    Surely the constitution doesn't demean children's rights, so why can't there be a law created instead when it doesn't conflict with the existing constitution?

    There are more important things we should have gotten a vote on - like the household charge and all the extra charges.
    Even the government are getting in trouble for spending tax payers money on a biased voting campaign for this referendum, there's something going on.
    I don't know what they are distracting us from, but there are plenty of possibilities - anything Europe related.


  • Options
    #333
    IceFjoem
    Registered Users Posts: 399 ✭✭IceFjoem


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfGdAQb8PZg


    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/irish-childrens-rights-referendum-will-make-children-property-of-the-state/


    Great discussion here in this video.


  • Options
    #334
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Vote YES and in this referendum and you could possibly loose your child to foster if you refuse to have him / her vaccinated when the time come with whatever chemicals.

    .


  • Options
    #335
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Vote YES and in this referendum and you could possibly loose your child to foster if you refuse to have him / her vaccinated when the time come with whatever chemicals.

    .
    Vote no and your children will be raped by Jimmy Savile's ghost!

    I can make up irrelevant sh*te too.

    This is a serious topic. Scaremongering isn't helping anyone.


  • Options
    #336
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Have no idea how I'm going to vote on this. Don't even know if I'll bother me hole.. truth be told I don't care which way it goes.

    I can't see it making a blind bit of real difference anyway. Seems like an ego-trip for the government more than anything else.. we just happen to be the ones paying for it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    Great. More discredited conspiracy theory bullshit about the state AND about vaccinations.

    YAY!


  • Options
    #338
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,040 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    IceFjoem wrote: »
    Great discussion here in this video.

    What's so great about it?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #339
    Gotham
    Registered Users Posts: 406 ✭✭Gotham


    dr.bollocko wrote: »
    Great. More discredited conspiracy theory bullshit about the state AND about vaccinations.

    YAY!

    They broke the law in direct relation to this referendum, I have no trust for this.

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/website-taken-down-as-court-rules-government-information-on-childrens-referendum-is-biased-3287409.html


  • Options
    #340
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    geeky wrote: »
    Judges at the moment cannot do their job, because they're asked to consider the extremely vague question of whether the parents "have failed". This will allow them to consider whether the child's welfare or safety is compromised by remaining with their birth parents. How on earth can this be a bad thing?



    See point above.

    The judiciary at the moment is hamstrung by the current constitution, and this is causing significant problems, both obvious and (in the case of the preference for voluntary orders) latent. We need to change the constitution to be more specific so they can do their jobs.

    I know this will not sort out the problems of Ireland's care system in one fell swoop. No constitutional change can do that. But it will resolve a legal blockage, which in turn creates many problems.

    I'm massively in favour of reforming the care system. But considered on its own merits, this constitutional change is a good thing that will allow judges to do their jobs better, and allow children to form a legal bond with new families.


    To get back to these.

    Copy pasta again from former Supreme Court judge Hugh O'Flaherty .
    The only new dimension is the extension of adoptions. But that can be done by ordinary legislation; and if there is any doubt about the Bill, it can be referred by the President to the Supreme Court to test its validity.

    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/hugh-oflaherty-we-dont-need-a-referendum-to-protect-our-childrens-rights-3226110.html

    And, we don't need to separate permanently all links to the childs extended family.


  • Options
    #341
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Seems like an ego-trip for the government more than anything else..

    Agree


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    geeky
    Registered Users Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭geeky


    IceFjoem wrote: »
    Great discussion here in this video.

    I'm afraid that, once John Waters started impugning the motives of foster carers, I resolved to stop listening to everything that comes out of his mopey, slappable face.

    The man is a pox.


  • Options
    #343
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Gotham wrote: »
    They broke the law in direct relation to this referendum, I have no trust for this.

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/website-taken-down-as-court-rules-government-information-on-childrens-referendum-is-biased-3287409.html
    Yes, the Supreme Court have commended the Government for its fair play and honesty in its approach to this Referendum.

    Oops, sorry. They've actually said the Government have illegally used public money to promote a biased and inaccurate view of the Amendment.
    http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/6b4d1de136ecb72d80257ab000419d78?OpenDocument
    7. The Court has concluded that it is clear that there are extensive passages in the booklet and on the website which do not conform to the McKenna principles. This material includes a misstatement, now admitted to be such, as to the effect of the Referendum.
    8. The Court is satisfied that while not all of the website or the booklet are in breach of the McKenna principles, because of the overall structure of the booklet and website, it would not be appropriate for the Court to redact either.
    9. Accordingly, the Court would grant a declaration that the respondents have acted wrongfully in expending or arranging to expend public moneys on the website, booklet and advertisements in relation to the Referendum on the Thirty First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill, 2012, in a manner which was not fair, equal or impartial. The Court does not consider it either appropriate or necessary to grant an injunction, as it is to be assumed that the respondents will cease distributing and publishing the material.


  • Options
    #344
    geeky
    Registered Users Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭geeky


    squod wrote: »
    To get back to these.

    Copy pasta again from former Supreme Court judge Hugh O'Flaherty .

    All due respect to O'Flaherty, but he's obfuscating quite a bit in that piece. The tangent about Dev's drafting of the constitution is bizarre. He doesn't actually look at the changes it makes - just vaguely says they're "nearly all" in past judgements or legislation.

    And, we don't need to separate permanently all links to the childs extended family.[/QUOTE]

    This won't. Children that decide they want a relationship with their birth families can still have that relationship.


    I've explained my reasoning for my position to you, so can I ask two questions:

    - what is wrong, in your view, with better specifying the circumstances under which the state can intervene to take a child into care?
    - what is wrong, in your view, with allowing a child to be adopted where reunification is impossible?


  • Options
    #345
    geeky
    Registered Users Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭geeky


    IceFjoem wrote: »
    Great discussion here in this video.

    Actually, I just broke my resolution. John Waters seriously proposes giving the fostering allowance to parents who are failing to look after their kids properly.

    Brilliant John, let's give more money to smack, benzo and alcohol addicts with kids. They won't put that cash in their veins, noses or gullets then. They'll magically become better parents.

    F*** off John Waters, just F*** off.


  • Options
    #346
    R0ot
    Registered Users Posts: 4,473 ✭✭✭R0ot


    I must have missed the registration date but sent in my register to vote form 2 weeks ago and still not listed in my area. :'(


  • Options
    #347
    steve9859
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭steve9859


    If the 26% of people who are not intending to vote (at the time of writing), are not voting because they think that the information provided has been one sided, and only the 'yes' side has been pushed, they should get out and vote no. Make the Government come back to the people with a legal campaign, and a better balanced messaging of the pros and cons.

    Otherwise the Yes will win, and it will be enshrined into law, whether you like it or not....voting 'no' will not kill it forever, just delay it.


  • Options
    #348
    IceFjoem
    Registered Users Posts: 399 ✭✭IceFjoem


    mango salsa wrote: »
    What's so great about it?

    It's not so much to do with the "horrors" of this new amendment, my interest lies more in the lunacy of Government spending.

    Take for example the discussion of cases whereby a social worker could deem that a couple who are say, unemployed, and cannot properly feed their children, can recommend that the state take the children into care. Whereby the state will provide funding of between €325-€353 (age relevant) a week, per child in care.

    The current child's benefit stands at between €140 and €160 a month plus whatever other tax exemptions are included for the parents (if they're employed).

    Certainly if any abuse exists in a child's home that is a different story altogether. IMO the best place for a child is with their parents. It just strikes me as madness that the state can remove a child from its parents on the basis of insufficient income only to throw huge amounts of money at the children once they're in care.


  • Options
    #349
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,242 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    I have never not voted before, but I have serious doubts about this referendum. I have read the information pages and apart from the adoption part of it, I cannot see why legislation will not deal with any of the issues. I don't feel that just voting no is what I want to say.


  • Options
    #350
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    geeky wrote: »
    - what is wrong, in your view, with allowing a child to be adopted where reunification is impossible?

    Think I answered that. Or The former Supreme Court Judge did anyway.
    if there is any doubt about the Bill, it can be referred by the President to the Supreme Court to test its validity.

    So this amendment hasn't been tested.

    geeky wrote: »
    - what is wrong, in your view, with better specifying the circumstances under which the state can intervene to take a child into care?

    Better for who? For the child or for the state? This amendment lets the state off the hook for loads of things. As I said before 99/100 it's the parents of the child that have to battle the state for services and rights for their child.


  • Options
    #351
    geeky
    Registered Users Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭geeky


    IceFjoem wrote: »

    It's not so much to do with the "horrors" of this new amendment, my interest lies more in the lunacy of Government spending.

    Take for example the discussion of cases whereby a social worker could deem that a couple who are say, unemployed, and cannot properly feed their children, can recommend that the state take the children into care. Whereby the state will provide funding of between €325-€353 (age relevant) a week, per child in care.

    The current child's benefit stands at between €140 and €160 a month plus whatever other tax exemptions are included for the parents (if they're employed).

    Certainly if any abuse exists in a child's home that is a different story altogether. IMO the best place for a child is with their parents. It just strikes me as madness that the state can remove a child from its parents on the basis of insufficient income only to throw huge amounts of money at the children once they're in care.

    For what it's worth, I have never once encountered "insufficient income" being the driver of taking kids into car. Have you?

    In all but two cases I've been privy to, drink or drugs was the dominating factor, with domestic violence also common. The other two involved grotesque sexual abuse and, in one very sad case, a mum with serious learning difficulties whose child required round the colck highly trained care.

    Throwing extra money at these situations will not fix them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    geeky
    Registered Users Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭geeky


    squod wrote: »

    Think I answered that. Or The former Supreme Court Judge did anyway.


    So this amendment hasn't been tested.




    Better for who? For the child or for the state? This amendment lets the state off the hook for loads of things. As I said before 99/100 it's the parents of the child that have to battle the state for services and rights for their child.

    I'm going to assume you misread me mistakenly, so I will reword my question.

    What is wrong with defining the circumstances where the state takes children into care more precisely?


  • Options
    #353
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    geeky wrote: »

    What is wrong with defining the circumstances where the state takes children into care more precisely?

    That's a legislative question. It doesn't need constitutional change.

    Edit. Just want to repeat myself here again. A lot of this is speculation because no-one has seen the following legislation to the constitutional amendment. To put it short, if that TD woman would just answer the fuhken questions I wouldn't need to be here explaining myself.


  • Options
    #354
    Stinicker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,102 ✭✭✭Stinicker


    I'm voting no as I heard today that this referendum will allow the state to legally deny schooling to autistic children. Poor misfortunes have enough to worry about besides that.


  • Options
    #355
    geeky
    Registered Users Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭geeky


    squod wrote: »

    That's a legislative question. It doesn't need constitutional change.

    At the moment, the constitution has vague guff about intervening "where the parents have failed in their duty". Dangerously vague, in fact.

    The amendment specifies that the state intervenes whenthe safety or welfare of the child is affected.

    Are you honestly saying you'd rather have that vague text over the clearer definition?


  • Options
    #356
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    looksee wrote: »
    I have never not voted before, but I have serious doubts about this referendum. I have read the information pages and apart from the adoption part of it, I cannot see why legislation will not deal with any of the issues. I don't feel that just voting no is what I want to say.

    I have very strong feelings about children's rights and I feel similar. I would guess that a large porportion of the demographic feel the same!


  • Options
    #357
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    geeky wrote: »

    Are you honestly saying you'd rather have that vague text over the clearer definition?

    It'll be no clearer in the future. I've outlined, a whole bunch of stuff that should be done isn't being done and won't be done. Changing the constitution won't make people do their jobs properly and it will effect how cases are brought against the state.


  • Options
    #358
    Royal Legend
    Registered Users Posts: 2,655 ✭✭✭Royal Legend


    I was in two (3 in reality) minds for the last few weeks, yes, no, abstain. But at 6.56 this evening I have decided to vote NO

    I am gobsmacked, the news today says that the referendum information has been mis-leading, guess what, I have just watched another advert in relation to the referendum and advising us to vote and look at the information on the leaflet!!!!!!!
    fkucing hell, do they think we are fkucing that stupid.

    The referendum needs to be cancelled, if not I am voting NO. :)


  • Options
    #359
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,040 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Royal Legend wrote: »
    the news today says that the referendum information has been mis-leading,

    This is simply not true.

    The Supreme Court decision did not comment on the merits one way or the other of the arguments in this referendum.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #360
    kerry4sam
    Registered Users Posts: 15,127 ✭✭✭✭kerry4sam


    Stinicker wrote: »
    I'm voting no as I heard today that this referendum will allow the state to legally deny schooling to autistic children. Poor misfortunes have enough to worry about besides that.

    I know you're saying you heard this, but have you seen it in writing anywhere also by any chance, preferably online to link to?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    yer man!
    Registered Users Posts: 1,650 ✭✭✭yer man!


    I just hope it doesn't turn into a "I hate the government, I'm voting no" scenario. I'm voting yes because I think it's the right thing to do for children.


Advertisement