The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged) - Page 239 - boards.ie
Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
20-07-2014, 18:30   #3571
robp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Táim i mo chónaí i tSacsain, an Ghearmáin
Posts: 1,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by StudentDad View Post
Hang on I'll get my net and I'll scoop up all these red herrings for you. There you go. What did you want to do with them?

Anyway, your phrase bishops are not politicians made me laugh. As regards the likes of Google et al. They are corporations bound by law, out to make a profit and they don't care what my personal beliefs are as long as I buy their crap. Microsoft won't be asking me what my beliefs are if I want to buy an xbox and won't discriminate against me on foot of any belief or lack of belief. They just want my money.
Social Justice Ireland cares about how you live your life. Peta cares about how you live your life. Green Peace cares about your personal beliefs and I don't see you referring to them. Double standard as you have an axe to grind. Pure and simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StudentDad View Post
Religions on the other hand sell belief. If the actions of the RCC are anything to go by the attitude seems to be do as we say nevermind what we do.
Completely untrue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StudentDad View Post
No accountability
I guess no one told you about many senior resignations that have occurred in the last ten years or the huge effort to create child protection policy. Or the church's own self funded child protection watch dog the National Board for Safeguarding Children. You really are ignoring so much of the last 10 years. I am starting to think you are just trying to wind me up...
robp is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
20-07-2014, 18:54   #3572
StudentDad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by robp View Post
Social Justice Ireland cares about how you live your life. Peta cares about how you live your life. Green Peace cares about your personal beliefs and I don't see you referring to them. Double standard as you have an axe to grind. Pure and simple.

Completely untrue.


I guess no one told you about many senior resignations that have occurred in the last ten years or the huge effort to create child protection policy. Or the church's own self funded child protection watch dog the National Board for Safeguarding Children. You really are ignoring so much of the last 10 years. I am starting to think you are just trying to wind me up...
Wind you up. Don't think so. As regards a few resignations and window dressing, that's all it is. PR. I have not seen any meaningful reform of the institution worth considering. As far as I'm aware laity have no meaningful input into the running of the organisation. From what I can see whenever there is a crisis the buck gets passed faster than a live grenade.

Everything I've seen in relation to the church reminds me of a multinational protecting it's interests. Not a church interested in it's members or the societies they live in.

SD
StudentDad is offline  
20-07-2014, 18:54   #3573
robp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Táim i mo chónaí i tSacsain, an Ghearmáin
Posts: 1,283
To be crystal clear, of course more accountability is good and it is reasonable to say that as the Catholic church is a very ancient organisation it does not have the best protocols for this. However it is unfair to say there is no accountability and it is unreasonable to insist that plebiscite elections are the only option. Huge effort has gone to increase transparency, modernise and improve standards in all areas and more of this is very welcome. However it will never be enough for some over zealous secularists who seem to be unable to let go of this outdated 19th cen Grand narrative.
robp is offline  
Thanks from:
22-08-2014, 12:00   #3574
El_Duderino 09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 408
The Catholics are soo soo sorry

Their sorrow is so deep and visceral that it cant be put in crude monetary terms

RTE Story here
El_Duderino 09 is offline  
Thanks from:
22-08-2014, 12:40   #3575
aloyisious
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bray, Co Wicklow
Posts: 2,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Duderino 09 View Post
The Catholics are soo soo sorry

Their sorrow is so deep and visceral that it cant be put in crude monetary terms

RTE Story here
A lack of sensibility, again. Para 5. corporate responsibility V the buck stops here

Para 6; every precaution taken AKA move the offender on to another parish.

Then again, he was formerly a major figure in the Australian branch before being moved to Rome. Cardinal Pell is now one of the most important figures in the Catholic Church, charged with helping overhaul the Vatican's much-criticised central administration following a wave of scandals.

Sarcastically speaking, were there experience-requirements set out for applicants for the position?

Will the church ever learn, as age doesn't seem to have given enlightenment to the upper echelons, no matter how closer they get to God.
aloyisious is offline  
Advertisement
22-08-2014, 14:25   #3576
marienbad
Registered User
 
marienbad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Duderino 09 View Post
The Catholics are soo soo sorry

Their sorrow is so deep and visceral that it cant be put in crude monetary terms

RTE Story here
His analogy is just incorrect , so lets change it , if an ambulance driver for the HSE ....

The point is when you have a duty of care because of your position the authority is negligent .
marienbad is offline  
22-08-2014, 14:46   #3577
hinault
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,343
George Pell is correct.

If an organisation has undertaken every policy and every procedure to try to prevent something from happening, and subsequently something happens, then that organisation cannot be held directly responsible.

Quote:
If in fact the authority figure has been remiss through bad preparation, bad procedures or has been warned and has done nothing or insufficient, then certainly the church should be held responsible
Of course the RTE link did not contain the above quote for some reason

Last edited by hinault; 22-08-2014 at 14:51.
hinault is offline  
22-08-2014, 14:53   #3578
El_Duderino 09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by hinault View Post
George Pell is correct.

If an organisation has undertaken every policy and every procedure to try to prevent something from happening, and subsequently something happens, then that organisation cannot be held directly responsible.
Hinalut, if only you could understand as efficiently as you misunderstand.

This is an organisation who routinely shuffled their staff around when an abuse allegation arose. Surely you are not suggesting that constitutes having "undertaken every policy and every procedure to try to prevent something from happening".

Shuffling perpetrators around, sushing victims, frustrating investigations, or as you might be calling it 'undertaking every policy and...'
El_Duderino 09 is offline  
Thanks from:
22-08-2014, 15:03   #3579
hinault
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Duderino 09 View Post
Hinalut, if only you could understand as efficiently as you misunderstand.

This is an organisation who routinely shuffled their staff around when an abuse allegation arose. Surely you are not suggesting that constitutes having "undertaken every policy and every procedure to try to prevent something from happening".

Shuffling perpetrators around, sushing victims, frustrating investigations, or as you might be calling it 'undertaking every policy and...'
I agree with Pell's reported comments.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ntingPage=true

RTE's reporting on this matter is different for some reason
hinault is offline  
Advertisement
22-08-2014, 16:15   #3580
MrPudding
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 8,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by hinault View Post
George Pell is correct.

If an organisation has undertaken every policy and every procedure to try to prevent something from happening, and subsequently something happens, then that organisation cannot be held directly responsible.
In terms of vicarious liability, which is what we are talking about here, you are wrong. Even where an organisation has done absolutely sverything possible, they can still be held liable.

Have a look at this case:

Century Insurance Co Ltd v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board

It is a case from the forties and is still good law in vicarious liability. This is about a petrol tanker driver that like to smoke whilst delivering fuel. Smoking whilst delivering thousands of litres of fuel was against company policy. There were signs to this effect and staff training reenforced this idea. Additionally, this driver had been previously warned for smoking and had received additional training. When he, enevitably, set a filling station on fire his employer was held liable.

Vicarious liability is not necessarily about holding the factually correct person or organisation liable, sometime it is, probably for public policy reasons, holding the person or organisation best able to handle the Liability responsible.

In the case of finding the church liable for the misdeeds of its priests it seems that in many cases, due to their behaviour in covering up the acts, moving offenders and not reporting matters to the police, it seems more than appropriate that they be held liable. There seems little reason to need to fall back on a public policy argument for liability. They said, the public policy justification is also good. A priest is unlikely to ha e the kind of money needed to adequated compensate his rape victim, particularly as many of them were quite prolific with their rapes. Holding the wider organisation liable means that, with the obvious outrageous exception of Ireland, victims will be able to secure compensation from the church, rather than the tax-payer. Everyone's a winner.

MrP
MrPudding is offline  
22-08-2014, 18:29   #3581
hinault
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrPudding View Post
In terms of vicarious liability, which is what we are talking about here, you are wrong. Even where an organisation has done absolutely sverything possible, they can still be held liable.

Have a look at this case:

Century Insurance Co Ltd v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board

It is a case from the forties and is still good law in vicarious liability. This is about a petrol tanker driver that like to smoke whilst delivering fuel. Smoking whilst delivering thousands of litres of fuel was against company policy. There were signs to this effect and staff training reenforced this idea. Additionally, this driver had been previously warned for smoking and had received additional training. When he, enevitably, set a filling station on fire his employer was held liable.
I would dispute that we're discussing vicarious liability in this instance.
hinault is offline  
22-08-2014, 19:34   #3582
MrPudding
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 8,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by hinault View Post
I would dispute that we're discussing vicarious liability in this instance.
So what are we discussing?

MrP
MrPudding is offline  
23-08-2014, 11:28   #3583
Corkfeen
Closed Account
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by hinault View Post
I would dispute that we're discussing vicarious liability in this instance.
The RCC is their employer, they were aware of numerous allegations so their preventative measure was to move them each time allegations arose. This system did not work, they were aware of this.
Corkfeen is offline  
(2) thanks from:
23-08-2014, 11:57   #3584
El_Duderino 09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by hinault View Post
I agree with Pell's reported comments.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ntingPage=true

RTE's reporting on this matter is different for some reason
Yeah to be fair, in the Mail, it doesn't really say whether he thinks the catholics are liable or not.

Basically he says 'if they did all they could they are not liable, and if they did not then are liable'. Is seems obvious to most people that they did not do all they could to prevent abuse, instead they did all they could to keep it from coming to light. But I suspect that everyone can read what they want from the statement.

Hinault, do you think, at the time, the Catholics had undertaken every policy and every procedure to try to prevent the abuse from happening?
El_Duderino 09 is offline  
28-09-2014, 10:36   #3585
aloyisious
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bray, Co Wicklow
Posts: 2,584
Reading this report, it seem's Pope Francis is, at least, clearing the upper decks within the South American Church. One thing that is clear is he was based there for a good many years within the church, so he may have become aware of rumours within that section of the church whilst there, or other people who knew him there have told him of them.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world...buse-1.1943306

Now the next thing is for people within the other continental branches of the church to take courage at his actions and let the truth be known about those abusers at all levels within those branches. There's no point in clearing the upper decks and promoting others if those filling the vacancies are cut from the same cloth.
aloyisious is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet