Michael Woods on Radio1

population

If anyone wants to hear a masterclass in lies and damn lies tune in now!!!

I am screaming at the radio and I am not a man to talk back to inanimate objects!!!!

mike65

Missed it, it'll be archived here in a day or two

P. Breathnach

population wrote: »

If anyone wants to hear a masterclass in lies and damn lies tune in now!!!

I am screaming at the radio and I am not a man to talk back to inanimate objects!!!!

He wasn't telling lies. He believed what he was saying. How anybody could believe it is beyond me, but he really has himself convinced.

population

P. Breathnach wrote: »

He wasn't telling lies. He believed what he was saying. How anybody could believe it is beyond me, but he really has himself convinced.

Actually you are about right there. FF Ministerial mental gymnastics are truly death defying on occasion.

I am finding it hard to pick out what upset me the most about it, bearing in mind there was so much nonsense spouted, but I would have to say his tone was very pedantic and condescending towards Rachel English, (though she did a decent job in fairness).

The whole thing was "Now now little girl, dont you be worrying your pretty little head with all those figures, just remember that Uncle Michael has saved all the children of Mother Eire"

I am spitting!!!!!

Nodin

Its too early in the day to subject meself to the prick......I'll get annoyed enough later reading the summary.

ilkhanid

P. Breathnach wrote: »

He wasn't telling lies. He believed what he was saying. How anybody could believe it is beyond me, but he really has himself convinced.

It's a bit like "1984" Double think. He has convinced himself that he was a shrewd operator who cut a great deal. In reality...they saw him comin'. I bet they were laughing behind their hands after he left "codded them again". Either that or he was biased in their favour from the start and determined to give tham an easy ride. Either way, it stinks to high heaven.

LookingFor

ilkhanid wrote: »

It's a bit like "1984" Double think. He has convinced himself that he was a shrewd operator who cut a great deal. In reality...they saw him comin'. I bet they were laughing behind their hands after he left "codded them again". Either that or he was biased in their favour from the start and determined to give tham an easy ride. Either way, it stinks to high heaven.

Unfortunately I can't help but feel it was the latter.

He's a staunch old-school Catholic. The religious may as well have been negotiating with themselves.

The manner in which Woods saw the deal through also is highly indicative that he knew it was a suspect deal. He wasn't codded, he knew exactly what he was doing.

InFront

From what I can gather and based also on what was said on Vincent Browne recently the Catholic Church Organisations only actually paid €50 million in cash for the cost and €10 million in administrative fees, There was no €100 mllion+ payment nor will there be.

The reason for this is that the balance is to be made up for by transferring educational property (schools) to the state. Great? No, the property is to be held in trust 'for Catholic educational puposes' indefinitely. So what was the point of that? The religious contribution is now down to €50 million because the rest of it can't be claimed to feature in reality. And the schools are still Catholic schools, the same as ever.

The Raven.

mike65 wrote: »

Missed it, it'll be archived here in a day or two

It is available now. I have just listened to it.

The Raven.

population wrote: »

Actually you are about right there. FF Ministerial mental gymnastics are truly death defying on occasion.

I am finding it hard to pick out what upset me the most about it, bearing in mind there was so much nonsense spouted, but I would have to say his tone was very pedantic and condescending towards Rachel English, (though she did a decent job in fairness).

The whole thing was "Now now little girl, dont you be worrying your pretty little head with all those figures, just remember that Uncle Michael has saved all the children of Mother Eire"

I am spitting!!!!!

I find it hard to know where to even begin on this verbiage from Woods. Rachel English was very strong in the interview. She kept asking him if he thought the Church should pay more, yet he kept dodging the question throughout. He was indeed ‘very pedantic and condescending’, not just to Rachel English, but towards women in general. He actually had the gall to say that boys were treated worse than girls in Catholic schools.

Corporal punishment in schools wasn’t abolished until 1982, and teachers' immunity from criminal prosecution wasn’t removed until 1997 (Offences Against the Person (Non Fatal) Act).

My education began with the most unmerciful Sisters of Mercy, who taught boys and girls together in the early years. The physical and mental cruelty of some of these nuns still haunts me and many others from those times. The vicious beatings (for trivial excuses), with canes and pointers (in full view of other children), were regular occurrences, causing pain, bruising, lacerations, humiliation and loss of human dignity. Did we complain? Usually no: for reasons of unjustified guilt, or due to the fact that, when we did complain, we weren’t believed, even with physical evidence. These same nuns behaved like innocent saints when parents met them on the streets, or when they visited the homes of children. They appear so ‘nice’ even to this day!

Michael Woods may laugh and trivialise the ‘whack over the knuckles with a ruler’. He ought to try playing the piano on a cold, frosty morning with bruised knuckles!

LookingFor wrote: »

He's a staunch old-school Catholic. The religious may as well have been negotiating with themselves.

The manner in which Woods saw the deal through also is highly indicative that he knew it was a suspect deal. He wasn't codded, he knew exactly what he was doing.

+1

I think he is every bit the slippery politician, with a devious answer for everything. By colluding with the Catholic hierarchy, both he and his cronies in the Fianna Fail government have been hoisted by their own petard. It is patently obvious that they pulled off a dodgy deal, supporting insufficient victim compensation from the Catholic Church, and immunity from legal action for violent, sadistic, and perverted criminals.

The whole tragic and appalling situation has now become international news, and as the world looks on in shock and horror, this deal should now be revisited. There should be a serious attempt to bring the perpetrators to justice, and an appropriate restitution made payable by the Catholic Church.

slippy wicket

Heard him on newstalk breakfast programme at the end of the week and he was equally as arrogant and patronizing. Dont know how true it is but i heard he is a member of opus dei. If so, it would explain a lot with regard to his attitude going into negotiations.:(

LookingFor

slippy wicket wrote: »

Dont know how true it is but i heard he is a member of opus dei.

I heard this too actually, from my father. Didn't want to mention it before since I wasn't sure how true it was, so I kept it at 'staunch, old-school Catholic', but I'd be curious if this is actually true..?

JonathanAnon

Just downloaded it and listening to it now. He fairly talks down to Rachael all the same. Very arrogant, almost as bad as Dick Roche. Talked round the real issues for the whole interview.

Enduro

This sounds to me like he basically committed treason on a rather large scale. But of course, there is no way he will ever be held accountable :mad:

The Raven.

Michael Woods is currently Chairman of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs.

After what he has done, how can he sleep at night?

meglome

Link anyone?

The Raven.

meglome wrote: »

Link anyone?

Link to what? Did you get this link here from page 1, for the Woods interview?

There is a very informative thread on Politics.ie: Why did FF bailout child abusers?

The shocking reality of the Child Abuse situation is even more hideous than most people realise. Michael Woods negotiated a contemptible deal with the religious orders, allowing them to pay grossly insufficient compensation, in return for immunity for their evil child molesters and rapists, including non-disclosure of names of these offenders. The Ryan report has even changed the names of those convicted!

It gets even worse! The victims were not only conned out of a fair compensation by the government of their country, but could only claim these paltry sums if they signed a statement saying that they wouldn’t take any private action. Consequently, some victims turned down the ‘compensation’ and courageously brought private actions.

And what of the State and the Department of Education? They too stand condemned for their abject and grotesque failures to protect the children in their care. Grossly inadequate inspection and regulation, combined with wilfully turning a blind eye when complaints were made are detailed repeatedly in the commission’s report.

And again, we perceive a pattern where this is no mere failing of a past era. We know that the Department of Education is currently fighting child sex abuse victims in the courts to ensure that the State is declared to have no legal responsibility for what happened to them. The State has even gone so far as to threaten victims that it will force them to pay its own legal costs (as well as theirs) should they continue to attempt to hold the State to account. This kind of bullying, threatening behaviour is redolent of the attitudes which the Ryan commission report describes as pervasive in the 1940s and 1950s. Nonetheless, hundreds of victims of child sexual abuse by day-school teachers continue today to experience what can fairly be described as a campaign of State-sponsored intimidation in their attempts to seek justice in the courts.

We have heard all about the ordeal of Louise O’Keeffe, terrified that she might lose her house to pay the State’s legal bills on foot of her case against the Department of Education over sexual abuse by her school principal, which she suffered at the age of eight.

A number of cases concerning another primary school teacher, the notorious former Christian Brother Donal Dunne, are similarly being fought by the State. This sexual predator is the subject of an entire chapter in the Ryan commission report, which also included day-school abuse within its remit.

It is an account of staggering negligence on the part of every single element of the educational system involved. Dunne (referred to as John Brander in the report) moved blithely from school to school across the midlands, sexually assaulting children in each of them, despite detailed knowledge at senior government and Catholic Church levels that he was a paedophile.

http://crmdb.paddydoyle.com/report-a-monument-to-a-societys-shame/

And as the vultures circle, the Church Abuse Fund won’t even cover the €140m bill for legal fees .

LookingFor

The Raven. wrote: »

And as the vultures circle, the Church Abuse Fund won’t even cover the €140m bill for legal fees .

That's shocking.

I really feel like we need to hit reset with our politicians. In this case here they have literally robbed us.

old boy

it is the voters who keep returning his ilk who are wrong, how can a suppososedly well educated electorate keep commiting hari kari election after election is beyond me, as a pensioner with only primary school education i can see thro the smoke and mirrors, how the feck can university educated and regional collage voters keep making the same mistake election after election boggles the few bits of grey matter i have left.

The Raven.

There is an excellent article in the Irish Times by Mary Raftery. It is well worth reading. I think it is the best I’ve read so far. Here is an extract:

Woods explained that the congregations said at the time that they had estimated their legal liability at under €60 million should they have to fight the court cases on their own. It appears that he believed them. What he did not mention was that their estimate was based on a belief that only about 10 per cent of cases against them would succeed, in other words that they would fight and beat in court nine out of every 10 victims who sued them.

The congregations’ confidence in such a high attrition rate was based on the protection afforded to them under the statute of limitations. This is a simple piece of legislation limiting the time after an injury during which a legal case can be taken.

The statute, however, could have been altered, lifted or amended at any time, and indeed in the wake of the States of Fear documentaries in 1999 it was suspended for a short period to allow those sexually abused to pursue their legal actions. Victims of physical abuse, though, were specifically excluded from the exemption. What is clear is that without the statute, the exposure of the religious orders would be hugely magnified. And therein should lie the key to government strategy on how to renegotiate the abysmal church-State deal.

Arguing palpable bad faith on the part of the religious orders – entirely reasonable on foot of the Ryan report revelations – the State should break the deal. It follows that it must then lift the statute of limitations for all cases of child abuse, not just sexual assault, as the only way to permit victims to seek appropriate legal remedy against the religious orders.

This would open the floodgates on the religious orders, who would have to defend against a tidal wave of abuse cases not only in their institutions but crucially also in their day schools. Given that there is hardly anyone in Ireland over the age of about 45 who was not beaten in school – often far in excess of what was permitted under Department of Education rules – hundreds of thousands of cases could ensue.

And, of course, as we know from the recent Louise O’Keeffe case, the State carries no legal responsibility for abuse suffered by children in schools. The entire liability for decades of violence against children in schools and institutions rests with either religious orders or with the bishops who continue to appoint schools’ boards of management.

This then brings the hierarchy into the picture. Michael Woods was at pains on Saturday to claim that none of this concerns the Catholic Church itself, but rather the religious orders – a somewhat Jesuitical distinction. The truth is that the entire church edifice is compromised, morally, legally and potentially financially. This appalling vista may well have dawned on the bishops.

It possibly explains the apparent breaking of ranks we witnessed at the weekend, with three senior churchmen indicating clearly that the religious orders should increase their contribution to the redress scheme for victims.

……

As the Ryan report points out, deference and submissiveness characterised the government’s dealings with the Catholic Church during much of the 20th century. It was clear that little had changed during the negotiation of the church-State deal in 2002.

Today, the Government faces a clear choice: will it continue its supine and cowed attitude – so disastrous in the past for the children of Ireland – or will it at last on our behalf stand up to those who have bullied and intimidated us all for so long?

What I find appalling here is that a large percentage of the population of Ireland is no longer intimidated by these bullies only to find that our elected government is still under their influence and acting accordingly on our behalf!

In 1999, Mary Raftery wrote, produced and directed the internationally acclaimed, award-winning three-part documentary series States of Fear.

InFront

There are a couple of problem with that article.

Firstly, many victims would not want to pursue a legal case against the Church for damages. Wouldn't they get a say in the state breaking the deal with the religious organisations? That could be looked at as the state forgoing its current obligations as well.

Secondly, the only legally impeding issue here is not the Statute of Limitations. There is the significant issue of evidence. Evidence required by the courts to prove instances of abuse as well as the problem in calling deceased witnesses would cause an enormous attrition rate that the author of that article doesn't even afford a mention to.

I don't think this suggestion is remotely feasible or attractive tbh.

lostexpectation

well shes presuming that the orders wouldn't unnessecarily challenge things as it is right to presume.

michael woods deffo deferential, back when men were men eh michael.

partyguinness

I heard this interview on Saturday morning and I have never heard anything so pathetic.

He even had the gall to blame it on the British:eek:..that it was a hangover from the colonial times...it was pitiful.

TBH I am so angry listening to hime I am not ready to fully write down my views on it.

Makes me wonder, who was he representing? The State or the Church. He spent the whole interview exaggerating the role of the State.

ps. Did you know Michael Woods is a member of Opus Die? Talk about a conflict of interests.

population

partyguinness wrote: »

He even had the gall to blame it on the British:eek:..that it was a hangover from the colonial times...it was pitiful.

Jesus in my blind rage at the whole interview I had almost forgotten that little nuggett.

It was all the Brits fault, how silly of me to entertain even for a second that it could be anything to do with the wave after wave of rapists that the Catholic Church unleashed on this country.......

Damn you Britain!!!!!

InFront

lostexpectation wrote: »

well shes presuming that the orders wouldn't unnessecarily challenge things as it is right to presume.

In the first case, it would be incredibly irresponsible to break with this agreement on the presumption that the Church would comply with the victims in this report in a court of law as they have never done before.

The Church fought the victims tooth and nail throughout the compilation of the Ryan Report and there is no doubt that mainly down to lack of evidence, they would have the distinct upper hand in almost every case due to absence of evidence against their members.

I just don't think it is for the taxpayer or the Government to even approve of a break with the current agreement. If anyone such decisions should be taken by the victims because they are the people effected by this and risk having the report findings in their favour being put at stake for the exchequer.

lostexpectation

InFront wrote: »

In the first case, it would be incredibly irresponsible to break with this agreement on the presumption that the Church would comply with the victims in this report in a court of law as they have never done before.

The Church fought the victims tooth and nail throughout the compilation of the Ryan Report and there is no doubt that mainly down to lack of evidence, they would have the distinct upper hand in almost every case due to absence of evidence against their members.

I just don't think it is for the taxpayer or the Government to even approve of a break with the current agreement. If anyone such decisions should be taken by the victims because they are the people effected by this and risk having the report findings in their favour being put at stake for the exchequer.

mary raferty suggested it was the orders who broke the contract by deliberately being dishonest to the enquiry, humans beings presume that the abusers won't block justice, and work from that point, you don't beg them to cooperate you strong arm them. that what i meant infront.

LostinBlanch

I am concerned that poor Michael would have to wait for his Papal Knighthood what with all this fuss going on. I thought he would have got it a year or two after he signed off on that deal.

Is he, or were any other cabinet members at the time, a member of Opus Dei? Could that have influenced this decision, or other decisions such as a blasphemy law which would practically rule out any criticism of the chuch for example?

All legitimate concerns.

What a f*cked up country we live in, we need to have a revolution otherwise we are going to get screwed over again and again and will be paying for this s*itfor the next 40 or 50 years.

mike65

Woods is generally belived to be a member of Opus Die er Dei proving it is another matter.

joseph brand

I thought there should be a face to go with the thread. A face to put to the hatred.



This is a new low for the government. I wouldn't put anything past em!

What a f*cked up country we live in, we need to have a revolution otherwise we are going to get screwed over again and again and will be paying for this s*itfor the next 40 or 50 years.

Its a LOT better than it was. Obviously.

. . . . .and people used to say, ahhh the good ould days! Yeah f**kin right!


My father still goes to the Pro Cathedral in town every Sunday morn. Not as staunch a Catholic as he used to be. But he always says that the nuns are worse than the Gistapo,. . . they're around a lot longer. (Which is true)

Irlandese

Enduro wrote: »

This sounds to me like he basically committed treason on a rather large scale. But of course, there is no way he will ever be held accountable :mad:

There is a very well funded and cleverly thought-out PR job on the go, at the moment.
It has many facets and many actors.
It is designed to get the Irish People to move on quickly and to forget the real issues behind the Ryan report on Abuse of Children in Care by the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland.
Above all, this clever PR campaign is about stopping any attempt to over-turn the dirty deal done by Michael Woods, to protect the enormous wealth of the RC Church in Ireland. It has the support of many senior members of both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, but not of all of them!
Some facts confirmed by the records that should be borne in mind:
1. Michael Woods excluded the Attorney General and his staff from any access to the details, and signed off on it in his LAST day in office, to avoid any chance that it would be blocked.
2. He did so, while aware that the Attorney General, the Irish Government’s Legal Officer, had told him in person and in writing that much more stringent and financially onerous terms than the appallingly lax ones he later applied should be imposed on the Roman Catholic Church, in any binding agreement.
3. Michael Woods signed off on behalf of the future poor taxpayers of Ireland, while describing himself in the media as a “strong Catholic”, not as someone who should uphold the equal rights of all citizens under our constitution, for whom he was being paid as a Government Minister, at the time.
4. This self-declaration that he acted as a “strong catholic” in forcing the taxpayers of all creeds to pay for the sins of one church, is enough to justify requests for legal action to overturn the deal by Irish citizens to our own constitutional courts, the EU Courts and the UN Courts on Human Rights.
5. We do not need proof of the membership of Opus Dei, Knights of Columbanus or of Crosseo, of Michael Woods, Bertie Ahearne, Dermot Ahearne or Brian Lenihan, to take this action. These should be investigated, by a legal tribunal, but the legal actions to over-turn the dirty deal should start now, with letters from interested parties and groups direct to the various legal groups mentioned above.
6. This is a time for popular action, by citizens, not waiting for further dirty deals between Church and State. We owe it to our children and their children’s children, to protect the economic viability of their future, more so because we did not protect the past of thousands of sexually and emotionally abused young children, given to the Roman Catholic Church as little more than animals to use and abuse at their perverse pleasure.
7. I call on all of you who can, to act. Start writing to anyone who will listen, to get these legal actions underway. If we have learned anything from all this, it is that We cannot trust the RC Church or our Politicians to act as they should. They are guilty of disgraceful collusion in all of this.
Ex-patriate Irishman

Irlandese

joseph brand wrote: »

I thought there should be a face to go with the thread. A face to put to the hatred.



This is a new low for the government. I wouldn't put anything past em!



Its a LOT better than it was. Obviously.

. . . . .and people used to say, ahhh the good ould days! Yeah f**kin right!


My father still goes to the Pro Cathedral in town every Sunday morn. Not as staunch a Catholic as he used to be. But he always says that the nuns are worse than the Gistapo,. . . they're around a lot longer. (Which is true)

The good news is we do not even need a revolution.
We can go to the European Court to save the taxpayers from the abuse of their rights by a sectarian deal done by a self-admitted biggotted minister " I am a strong catholic etc"
I quote again from my other mail. It really is that simple. People just have to write to the EU Commission Office in Brussells and complain. Then write to all the successful Irish MEPs and ask them to table Parlimentary Questions on the issue. Ask Civil Rights Groups to take cases in Ireland, to Supreme Court and to UN Court of International Justice etc etc:
There is a very well funded and cleverly thought-out PR job on the go, at the moment.
It has many facets and many actors.
It is designed to get the Irish People to move on quickly and to forget the real issues behind the Ryan report on Abuse of Children in Care by the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland.
Above all, this clever PR campaign is about stopping any attempt to over-turn the dirty deal done by Michael Woods, to protect the enormous wealth of the RC Church in Ireland. It has the support of many senior members of both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, but not of all of them!
Some facts confirmed by the records that should be borne in mind:
1. Michael Woods excluded the Attorney General and his staff from any access to the details, and signed off on it in his LAST day in office, to avoid any chance that it would be blocked.
2. He did so, while aware that the Attorney General, the Irish Government’s Legal Officer, had told him in person and in writing that much more stringent and financially onerous terms than the appallingly lax ones he later applied should be imposed on the Roman Catholic Church, in any binding agreement.
3. Michael Woods signed off on behalf of the future poor taxpayers of Ireland, while describing himself in the media as a “strong Catholic”, not as someone who should uphold the equal rights of all citizens under our constitution, for whom he was being paid as a Government Minister, at the time.
4. This self-declaration that he acted as a “strong catholic” in forcing the taxpayers of all creeds to pay for the sins of one church, is enough to justify requests for legal action to overturn the deal by Irish citizens to our own constitutional courts, the EU Courts and the UN Courts on Human Rights.
5. We do not need proof of the membership of Opus Dei, Knights of Columbanus or of Crosseo, of Michael Woods, Bertie Ahearne, Dermot Ahearne or Brian Lenihan, to take this action. These should be investigated, by a legal tribunal, but the legal actions to over-turn the dirty deal should start now, with letters from interested parties and groups direct to the various legal groups mentioned above.
6. This is a time for popular action, by citizens, not waiting for further dirty deals between Church and State. We owe it to our children and their children’s children, to protect the economic viability of their future, more so because we did not protect the past of thousands of sexually and emotionally abused young children, given to the Roman Catholic Church as little more than animals to use and abuse at their perverse pleasure.
7. I call on all of you who can, to act. Start writing to anyone who will listen, to get these legal actions underway. If we have learned anything from all this, it is that We cannot trust the RC Church or our Politicians to act as they should. They are guilty of disgraceful collusion in all of this.
Ex-patriate Irishman

Irlandese

partyguinness wrote: »

I heard this interview on Saturday morning and I have never heard anything so pathetic.

He even had the gall to blame it on the British:eek:..that it was a hangover from the colonial times...it was pitiful.

TBH I am so angry listening to hime I am not ready to fully write down my views on it.

Makes me wonder, who was he representing? The State or the Church. He spent the whole interview exaggerating the role of the State.

ps. Did you know Michael Woods is a member of Opus Die? Talk about a conflict of interests.

Have a look at my other inputs, above.
There has been a decision to paint the State as responsible. Look at O'Keefe's repeat apology.
This is WRONG !
It was the Roman Catholic Church who instituted the standard operating practice of sexual and physical and emotional abuse of children in their paid-for-by-the-taxpayer care.
Do not let the abusers or their toady agents try to put the blame on the state.
Do not let them foist even 50% of the costs onto us.
I read that the former Minister for Health, Dr.Noel Browne talked privately for years about his medical palliative care, as a doctor, for the anal lesions of young boys, patients of his, personally and not lovingly abused by the great Archbishop Mc Quaid. The rot started at the top, not at the bottom.

Irlandese

mike65 wrote: »

Woods is generally belived to be a member of Opus Die er Dei proving it is another matter.

We do not need to prove it.
He admitted that at the time of signing off on the dirty little deal, on his last day in office, after excluding all involvement of the Attorney General, Micheail Mc Dowell, who opposed the deal, on our behalf, that he, Michael woods was so doing, " as a strong catholic".
This is self-admitted sectarian bias, forcing the entire population, of all denominations, to pay for the results of sexual and other abuse by the practitioners of one religion, the Roman Catholic Church.
That is enough to justify complaints to the President, Mc Aleese, demanding she send the deal to the Supreme Court for testing against the Constitution.
Why has she not done so already?
We know why..............

Irlandese

I tried commenting to the PaddyDoyle site but despite treble checking each time, the page refused my comments telling me I could not count ( You have to do a simple add-up to complete a screening question)