The Frontline, RTÉ 1, 04 November 2012

Lapin

I'm still undecided on which way to vote next Saturday but the more I listen to John Waters the more I'm inclined to disagree with him.

JonathanAnon

Lapin wrote: »

I'm still undecided on which way to vote next Saturday but the more I listen to John Waters the more I'm inclined to disagree with him.

The level of argument I find to be extremely cynical...

"Vote yes for children"..... ?? What the fk is that even meant to mean...


Social workers in the UK grabbing children from homes??? I think John Waters was watching a re run of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang on the BBC

JonathanAnon

I'm certainly prepared to provide a home for that hot chick in the front row..

Lady Chatterton

I don't believe voting yes is going to improve things for children as there aren't enough resources to support children or families in crisis in this country.

JonathanAnon

Nobody in State employment is ever held accountable for their actions... Until this situation is changed they should not be given any more responsibilities in any area.....

Lapin

MrsD007 wrote: »

I don't believe voting yes is going to improve things for children as there aren't enough resources to support children or families in crisis in this country.

That may well be true, but is it a good reason to vote no ?

JonathanAnon

I'm voting Yes (to staying in bed all day Saturday)..

tayto lover

Not sure which way i'll vote yet but John Watters is scaremongering big time.
He will drive more people to vote yes.

The Sparrow

John Waters is a clown. I'm surprised he didn't come dressed up like the Childcatcher. He really should be introduced as "Resident Gob****e John Waters"

You can hear that Pat is not happy.

coolhull

Wonder what way the Christian Brothers will vote

Lady Chatterton

Lapin wrote: »

That may well be true, but is it a good reason to vote no ?

Well I've seen parents of children with autism having to take the State to the High Court in order to get an appropriate education for their children. I personally feel the State should try to support families by providing proper services, such access to social workers, health services and educational supports etc.

tayto lover

Did Watters lose access to his own children?

The Sparrow

tayto lover wrote: »

Did Watters lose access to his own children?

I don't know but he seems to have lost access to his own mind.

The Black Oil

MrsD007 wrote: »

Well I've seen parents of children with autism having to take the State to the High Court in order to get an appropriate education for their children. I personally feel the State should try to support families by providing proper services, such access to social workers and health services etc.

Didn't happen much during the boom (were we even interested in paying for such services then, adequate staffing of NEPS, etc?) - not much of a hope in a recession. Anyway...

take everything

Waters is way too emotional to make sense.

Lady Chatterton

tayto lover wrote: »

Did Watters lose access to his own children?

No, but he has been fighting for years to improve father's rights.

maidie

Couldn't decide what way to vote, but listening to the conversation tonight, I am more inclined towards a NO vote. I just do not trust the Government to do anything right, was anybody ever made responsible for the Roscommon case? I very much doubt it. Incompetence is what comes to mind when I think of the Government and I dread to think what feck ups they would make with this.

tayto lover

MrsD007 wrote: »

No, but he has been fighting for years to improve father's rights.

Thanks for that. He seems unstable.

Lisha

What the minister has said makes sense
The state has been dreadfully wrong in the past. By improving the laws the state will be obliged to be a lot better
I do fear that financial concerns will hamper the state against providing the necessary measures but I would prefer that the state be obliged to do better and be allowed to hold dreadful parents accountable
John waters is the best asset the yes vote has
No one will have a child removed unless totally necessary and it won't be final unless it truly is completely needed
At present the child's needs are placed after the family s needs
I really hope this referendum changes this

GoldFour4

The scaremongering is just ridiculous from Waters. From trying to insert "missing" words into the amendment to stating straight out lies. Some of the comments he made about foster parents were just terrible and a horrific disservice to the many foster parents who open their doors to poor innocent children and treat them as if they were their own.

I can't imagine he persuaded anyone to join the no side tonight.

tayto lover

Meanwhile V.B. discussing the forthcoming budget.

JonathanAnon

Instruction to RTE cameraman
"pick out as many smiling women as you can"

Lapin

tayto lover wrote: »

Meanwhile V.B. discussing the forthcoming budget.

Is Karen there ??????????

Lisha

maidie wrote: »

Couldn't decide what way to vote, but listening to the conversation tonight, I am more inclined towards a NO vote. I just do not trust the Government to do anything right, was anybody ever made responsible for the Roscommon case? I very much doubt it. Incompetence is what comes to mind when I think of the Government and I dread to think what feck ups they would make with this.

I truly believe that the legislation in its current form was to blame for social workers hands being tied in the above cases
These cases are really a reason to vote yes

I ve spoken to social workers who have to give kids back to abusive parents because the temporarily clean up their act
Only to see the kids a few months later in a worse state than ever
Poor kids have no chance
At present bad parents have no reason to be afraid of losing the kids

Happyman42

Lisha wrote: »

What the minister has said makes sense
The state has been dreadfully wrong in the past. By improving the laws the state will be obliged to be a lot better

Could you point us all to instances where the state or our ststesmen and women have ever felt the obligation of responsibilities?

tayto lover

Lapin wrote: »

Is Karen there ??????????

Unfortunately not. I'm talking to meself over there.

Lisha

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could you point us all to instances where the state or our ststesmen and women have ever felt the obligation of responsibilities?

They are trying to improve the current inadequate legislation now
The past cannot be changed but it can only be learned from

maringo

I'll be voting for the referendum. This scaremongering really p-sses me off no end. Why shouldn't children of married people be allowed to be adopted if their parents don't want or can't look after them rather than be in temporary foster care due to abuse or neglect by their natural parent/s? So many great foster parents with foster children who would love to be adopted into their foster family but currently can't be. I welcome the fact that a child's view will be heard too in a separation/divorce of their parents. Personally I know of a child forced to go to one of his parents every weekend until he reached the age where he could stop going. Apparently the parent he spent weekends with as ordered by the court was as violent to his new partner as he had been to the child's mother. This fact only emerged when the teenager asked his mother if his father had ever hit her (she had never told her son that violence was the reason she separated from his father) so in fact that child was forced to spend each weekend in a violent situation. Hopefully a judge will weigh the situation having listened to the child and prevent this happening to kids in the future if the referendum is passed.

Recommend you read Dave Pelzer's stories of his terrible abuse by his own mother. Exceptional man to survive such an "upbringing".

jluv

I'm on the No side simply because of the volumn of power which could be given to either side. If I vote yes then the state (in all their power) which have been very wrong before could be given too much power that parents could not fight against. However if the parents have some power,the state always have some powers to overcome this. Which is pretty much as it is right now except the state does not have the resourses to help the children.Where's the win??

maidie

Lisha wrote: »

I truly believe that the legislation in its current form was to blame for social workers hands being tied in the above cases
These cases are really a reason to vote yes

I ve spoken to social workers who have to give kids back to abusive parents because the temporarily clean up their act
Only to see the kids a few months later in a worse state than ever
Poor kids have no chance
At present bad parents have no reason to be afraid of losing the kids

I understand what you are saying but in the Roscommon case it wasn't legislation, it appears to be complete incompetence, in fairness who in their right mind would leave children to be so badly abused because of legislation. I am 100% behind the absolute best interest of the children, just not sure the Government will make a balls of it,

Happyman42

Lisha wrote: »

The past cannot be changed but it can only be learned from

Exactly, which is why I'm voting an emphatic NO.