childrens Referendum **poll added**

Smidge

goodie2shoes wrote: »

perhaps the Govt. are planning on kidnapping children and selling them to China?

i mean why else would the Chinese president visit this tiny country last year. all that stuff about beef, and milk exports was a smokescreen imho.

i used to think Dana was a crack-pot but now i'm not so sure.

we need to wake up to this.

China has a one child policy(at the minute) so there really would be no point in that, I'm afraid.

MadYaker

tan11ie wrote: »

Who the **** said I didn't read up on it all?

I have already read through the website,I have also read the four "vote yes" leaflets that arrived through my door, are you saying everything is explained as clear as day?? It's not to me !

My comment about media/public debate lies with the fact that their are a lot out their that take a glance at what is available to them (all those "vote yes"leaflets)and base their opinion on that, those who will just place their trust in the Government yet again.

I wonder if any "Vote No" leaflets will arrive through the door before Saturday.

Ah ok, i got the impression from your post that you were expecting their to be more debate in the media to help you make your mind up.

goodie2shoes

Smidge wrote: »

China has a one child policy(at the minute) so there really would be no point in that, I'm afraid.

exactly!
there is a huge black-market for kids in China, and India. especially boys.

this is going to be a big money spinner for the Govt.
China will probably help us with our debts.

they'll be sneeking around houses stealing our kids!
that Frankie Fitz one is pure evil.

VOTE NOooooooooooo!

petebricquette

Seems to me that John Waters is the king of rabble-rousing. And a complete pain in the arse to boot. (if anyone's watching Pat Kenny's show...)

goodie2shoes

there is also a huge market for organs, body parts etc.

we could wipe out our budget deficit overnight, if all the kids from economically marginalized areas of limerick and dublin were "harvested".

God help us all!

for the love of sweet Jesus VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!

spacetweek

Watching Pat Kenny right now, I swear I want to punch John Waters and I am not a man of violence.

Disgraceful audience clapping every silly, inflammatory thing he has to say.

Smidge

spacetweek wrote: »

Watching Pat Kenny right now, I swear I want to punch John Waters and I am not a man of violence.

Disgraceful audience clapping every silly, inflammatory thing he has to say.

Feck, just missed it.

I am voting no and would PREFER if John Waters would f*ck right off and be quite.

goodie2shoes

i'm waiting for that Fitz one to reach behind her coiffured head, peel off her face and reveal a lizard's smile.

Thank God for Walters.
He's true love and compassion is a beacon in these dark times.

petebricquette

spacetweek wrote: »

Watching Pat Kenny right now, I swear I want to punch John Waters and I am not a man of violence.

Disgraceful audience clapping every silly, inflammatory thing he has to say.

It's absolutely shocking. My favourite was "In the time since you've announced this election, statistically two children have died in state care." Is he for real? Ffs.

goodie2shoes

petebricquette wrote: »

It's absolutely shocking. My favourite was "In the time since you've announced this election, statistically two children have died in state care." Is he for real? Ffs.

IT's STARTING ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

"Hail Mary, full of grace..........."

steddyeddy

I'm undecided as whether to vote yes or no. Im veering on the yes side but I think the referendum ignores more serious issues such as state incompetence when looking after children. Saying that the no side havent offered up an alternative and maybe a yes vote will give children even those in state care more rights.

goodie2shoes

someone here has suggested that it's nothing at all to do with China, but Frau Merkel!!!

initially i was totally sceptical but after consideration it makes much more sense imho.

the German economy is in surplus, so they have the dosh. we need the dosh. Enda is very friendly with Angela and also best buddies with Fitz. we all know what them Germans are capable of.

My God this is like the most evil plan ever devised.

I feel sick .....................:eek:

squod

1,050,000 children in the state. It's short odds that this has something to do with revenue or costs to the state.

Yes for children

Except when they're sick or injured.

Children's Hospital 2016 deadline cannot be met says James Reilly

Except when they're victims of abuse.

Refuge turns away 80pc of abuse victims
Sonas Housing revealed almost 600 vulnerable women living with abuse made contact in 2011, but only 130 women with 250 children could be taken in

Except when they're poor.

if children really do matter, how come so many are in poverty, or fail to get adequate education?

These are the realities of Ireland in 2012 and letting the state of the hook even further is hardly solving anything.

Vote yes? Hell no.

Smidge

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm undecided as whether to vote yes or no. Im veering on the yes side but I think the referendum ignores more serious issues such as state incompetence when looking after children. Saying that the no side havent offered up an alternative and maybe a yes vote will give children even those in state care more rights.

I had thought that I would vote yes but having read through it I felt that the yes side were not giving me a good enough reason to vote yes other than"this is about kids, vote yes, it will be good for them":rolleyes:

Having read through the referendum I dont feel the yes side have been honest about the full ramifications of putting this into our constitution.

squod

Smidge wrote: »

Having read through the referendum I dont feel the yes side have been honest about the full ramifications of putting this into our constitution.

We haven't even seen the follow up legislation to the constitutional change.

goodie2shoes

Smidge wrote: »

I had thought that I would vote yes but having read through it I felt that the yes side were not giving me a good enough reason to vote yes other than"this is about kids, vote yes, it will be good for them":rolleyes:

Having read through the referendum I dont feel the yes side have been honest about the full ramifications of putting this into our constitution.

i initially thought i had to vote Yes for the sake of the kids, but after mature reflection and having listened to John Walters explain exactly what the state is up to, i'm voting NO!

bottom line is we must never trust them.
they will take our kids away.
we MUST not allow them to.

R0ot

Oh to be in a world where the extremists would realise they'd do more for their cause by shutting the hell up and letting the people decide through factual debate...

I swear every time I see Dana associated with the No vote makes me die in side for being even on the same side as her for completely different reasons.

Smidge

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i initially thought i had to vote Yes for the sake of the kids, but after mature reflection and having listened to John Walters explain exactly what the state is up to, i'm voting NO!

bottom line is we must never trust them.
they will take our kids away.
we MUST not allow them to.

G2S
With all due respect do you have anything sensible to contribute?
FYI I wouldn't have replied only you have quoted me and I have been ignoring your posts in this thread as they are immature and nonsensical.
Trying to bate people won't work if that's what you want.

Sierra Oscar

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm undecided as whether to vote yes or no. Im veering on the yes side but I think the referendum ignores more serious issues such as state incompetence when looking after children. Saying that the no side havent offered up an alternative and maybe a yes vote will give children even those in state care more rights.

The amendment will force the Oireachtas to legislate to enshrine children's rights, and will in the process ensure that the state has to up its game in terms of correctly looking after the children it cares for.

Voting no will not ensure that incompetence within the authorities is solved.


EDIT: We spend an unproportionate amount of time talking about the state and how it looks after children. The vast majority of abuse directed at children takes place in the home itself.

Smidge

R0ot wrote: »

Oh to be in a world where the extremists would realise they'd do more for their cause by shutting the hell up and letting the people decide through factual debate...

I swear every time I see Dana associated with the No vote makes me die in side for being even on the same side as her for completely different reasons.

+1
I feel the same way with regard to Dana and John Waters.
It's a strange situation to be in to want a no to this and for others to see you as a crackpot.
I'm a bit appalled to be honest at who the "no" side have allowed to represent them.

goodie2shoes

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The amendment will force the Oireachtas to legislate to enshrine children's rights, and will in the process ensure that the state has to up its game in terms of correctly looking after the children it cares for.

Voting no will not ensure that incompetence within the authorities is solved.

but we cannot trust the state. John Walters said so. he has first hand experience of these matters.

Sierra Oscar

goodie2shoes wrote: »

but we cannot trust the state. John Walters said so. he has first hand experience of these matters.

John Waters is a rabble rouser who opposed everything and agrees with nothing. Until he can put forward a coherent argument which explains how children will end up better off by voting no, then I will be voting yes.

The fact is that voting no achieves nothing. Voting yes creates the opportunity, by forcing the state to legislate on the matter, to better protect the wellbeing of vulnerable children.

petebricquette

goodie2shoes wrote: »

but we cannot trust the state. John Walters said so. he has first hand experience of these matters.

For the first time ever, I'm gonna click that ignore button. You're a troll, goodie2shoes.

steddyeddy

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The amendment will force the Oireachtas to legislate to enshrine children's rights, and will in the process ensure that the state has to up its game in terms of correctly looking after the children it cares for.

Voting no will not ensure that incompetence within the authorities is solved.


EDIT: We spend an unproportionate amount of time talking about the state and how it looks after children. The vast majority of abuse directed at children takes place in the home itself.

Thats true but the state has failed to prtect those who sought protection from abuse and has failed to protect those removed from abusive situations.

steddyeddy

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The amendment will force the Oireachtas to legislate to enshrine children's rights, and will in the process ensure that the state has to up its game in terms of correctly looking after the children it cares for.

Voting no will not ensure that incompetence within the authorities is solved.

What will happen if certain individuals within state bodies simply continue to ignore childrens rights though? Is this not just a token gesture? I mean can it be enforced?

goodie2shoes

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

John Waters is a rabble rouser who opposed everything and agrees with nothing. Until he can put forward a coherent argument which explains how children will end up better off by voting no, then I will be voting yes.

The fact is that voting no achieves nothing. Voting yes creates the opportunity, by forcing the state to legislate on the matter, to better protect the wellbeing of vulnerable children.

cant you see the state will be telling you are not a fit parent. maybe you had a few drinks too many after skysunday, or maybe you couldn't afford the fuel bill that month? they can then take your kids. it will be in the amendment.

did you not hear the Frontline debate?

Sierra Oscar

steddyeddy wrote: »

Thats true but the state has failed to prtect those who sought protection from abuse and has failed to protect those removed from abusive situations.

Indeed. So it is important to vote yes in order to ensure that the state introduces robust legislation to better protect the child.

Voting no will not improve the situation. It will allow the status quo to continue.

goodie2shoes wrote: »

cant you see the state will be telling you are not a fit parent. maybe you had a few drinks too many after skysunday, or maybe you couldn't afford the fuel bill that month? they can then take your kids. it will be in the amendment.

did you not hear the Frontline debate?

You are lying, as what you highlighted will not be in the amendment.

goodie2shoes

Smidge wrote: »

+1
I feel the same way with regard to Dana and John Waters.
It's a strange situation to be in to want a no to this and for others to see you as a crackpot.
I'm a bit appalled to be honest at who the "no" side have allowed to represent them.

just cos u dont like them doesn't invalidate their argument.
i mean i dont like Elton John, but i hum to his/her tunes now 'n then.

deal with the issues!

Smidge

I haven't read anything that would support the idea that a yes vote will protect children any better than is already there(just not being implemented by the state bodies).

goodie2shoes

Smidge wrote: »

I haven't read anything that would support the idea that a yes vote will protect children any better than is already there(just not being implemented by the state bodies).

yes because our kids have ample protection as it is.
this referendum is totally uneccessary.
John Walters said so.