Mairia Cahill vindicated

blanch152

Havockk wrote: »

I think if a report that condemned the guards was released, then the onus on us should be to discuss the filings of the guards.

Well, actually, there have been a number of reports that condemned the gardai's handling of abuse allegations against Catholic priests.

The focus of the discussion since has mainly been on the actions of the abusers and how they were able to get away with it, mostly through the connivance of their organisation, the Catholic Church.

Shouldn't be anything different here when we criticise SF/IRA.

blanch152

blackwhite wrote: »

I see Mary Lou has “unreservedly apologied” on behalf of SF for how Cahill was treated.

Pity their cheerleaders on here don’t have the same basic decency

Interesting that those that were defending Sinn Fein and referring to the "alleged" abuse have all disappeared since you posted that statement.

splinter65

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So if the defendant is found not guilty, the abuse happened anyway. Is that what you are saying?
A court case is therefore pointless?

Francie the dear Leader has apologized unreservedly for how SF treated Mairia Cahill. Isn’t that great news?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, actually, there have been a number of reports that condemned the gardai's handling of abuse allegations against Catholic priests.

The focus of the discussion since has mainly been on the actions of the abusers and how they were able to get away with it, mostly through the connivance of their organisation, the Catholic Church.

Shouldn't be anything different here when we criticise SF/IRA.

The report was on the 'failings' of the RUC/PSNI.

Mary Lou has reiterated SF's regrets that mandatory reporting was not in place as it wasn't in many many organisations and apologised to Cahill for that.

It has to be remembered that Cahill didn't trust the RUC either. Rightly so, as the report shows.

The way seems clear for Cahill to pursue justice now, which if her allegations are true, needs to be done. The defendants are more than willing to go to court it seems.

FrancieBrady

splinter65 wrote: »

Francie the dear Leader has apologized unreservedly for how SF treated Mairia Cahill. Isn’t that great news?

Gerry Adams did the same.
The fact is, nobody, including Cahill, trusted the police. Why that was, and who was to blame, is a whole other thread in itself.

James Brown

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If an accused murderer is found not guilty, does the murdered person come back to life?

If they never died?

Edgware

blanch152 wrote: »

You are disgustingly wrong.

The report said that three children were abused.

Mary Lou McDonald has admitted they suspended a member for child abuse.

Will you all stop pretending it didn't happen.

Did they suspend him by the ears or by the legs?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The report was on the 'failings' of the RUC/PSNI.

Mary Lou has reiterated SF's regrets that mandatory reporting was not in place as it wasn't in many many organisations and apologised to Cahill for that.

It has to be remembered that Cahill didn't trust the RUC either. Rightly so, as the report shows.

The way seems clear for Cahill to pursue justice now, which if her allegations are true, needs to be done. The defendants are more than willing to go to court it seems.

Yup, Mary Lou has reiterated that they behaved in the exact same way as the Catholic Church.


Why do you continue to post nasty lies such as "the defendants are more than willing to go to court"?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If they never died?

Are you seriously suggesting that Mairia Cahill was not abused?

Please answer this question clearly.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Yup, Mary Lou has reiterated that they behaved in the exact same way as the Catholic Church.


Why do you continue to post nasty lies such as "the defendants are more than willing to go to court"?

They turned up last time and released a statement saying they wanted the chance to clear their names. No lie there.

And the news this morning claimed the defendant was still protesting his innocence.

Good job there isn't mandatory hanging here on the basis of allegations.

FreudianSlippers

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that Mairia Cahill was not abused?

Please answer this question clearly.

Can I just add to this question as well that, despite having never seen the report, they also disagree with the statement made by PSNI Chief Constable George Hamilton (who has obviously seen the report) that the abuse did occur against three victims?

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's incorrect. The guilt of an individual in relation to abuse must be found beyond reasonable doubt by a jury; the fact that a victim was abused by someone is a matter of fact.

What fact? A claim, unproven and not properly investigated is a fact?

..........

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The story here seems to be in reality that thee actual victims did not get justice, nor did anyone get brought to justice, as a result of systemic failures relating to the investigation and gathering of evidence in relation to a crime that does not appear to be "alleged" at all.

You say 'brought to justice', for what? has anything been proven in a court of law? The claims should have gotten proper investigation. That's why the report is critical of the PSNI. She may or may not have been abused in the eyes of the law. There wasn't a proper investigation. Ms. Cahill did not get the representation she or anyone making such claims deserves. How many degrees did you say?

Zubeneschamali

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that Mairia Cahill was not abused?

Please answer this question clearly.

If not, why did Gerry and Mary Lou apologize to her?

James Brown

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If not, why did Gerry and Mary Lou apologize to her?

I believe it was due to the way her claims were treated internally.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They turned up last time and released a statement saying they wanted the chance to clear their names. No lie there.

And the news this morning claimed the defendant was still protesting his innocence.

Good job there isn't mandatory hanging here on the basis of allegations.

It seems the law and order advocates are happy to call for the mob rule/kangaroo court when it's politically suited.

Ms. Cahill deserved better from the PSNI. Using alleged abuse for political point scoring is disgusting IMO.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

How many degrees did you say?

Given you've failed constantly to get a response from me and you've avoided my question about your legal education and experience, you deflect again by trying to personalise the issue.

The answer is three specifically in law (two of which are postgraduate) and one in an economic related field.

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Given you've failed constantly to get a response from me and you've avoided my question about your legal education and experience, you deflect again by trying to personalise the issue.

The answer is three specifically in law (two of which are postgraduate) and one in an economic related field.

You'd don't seem to have a grasp of the difference between proven in the eyes of the law and alleged. That's my point.
The main issue here is the PSNI not investigating properly. Twisting it to get a dig in at SF or whomever is another story. But have at it sure.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I believe it was due to the way her claims were treated internally.



It seems the law and order advocates are happy to call for the mob rule/kangaroo court when it's politically suited.

Ms. Cahill deserved better from the PSNI. Using alleged abuse for political point scoring is disgusting IMO.

Again - you seem to be either obtuse to the point being made or attempting to (for some unknown personal reason) avoid what has been reported: nobody is claiming that the accused person is guilty of the abuse, however it would seem that the PSNI and SF are in agreement with the report (which I stress that you have not seen and they have) that Mairia Cahill and two others were abused.

It does not take the "court of law" to ascertain whether abuse occurred.

splinter65

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Gerry Adams did the same.
The fact is, nobody, including Cahill, trusted the police. Why that was, and who was to blame, is a whole other thread in itself.

But why would she or Adams be appogising if they were sure there was nothing to apologize for? I sure as hell wouldn’t be saying sorry if I was confident that no one in my organization had sexually abused anyone...

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You'd don't seem to have a grasp of the difference between proven in the eyes of the law and alleged. That's my point.
The main issue here is the PSNI not investigating properly. Twisting it to get a dig in at SF or whomever is another story. But have at it sure.

I don't think you seem to be an expert yourself in relation to matter of the law and matters of fact. Given you've queried now on two occasions my educational bona fides I'm uncertain as to why you believe yourself to be such an expert on the report and on the legal system of Northern Ireland (or in fact any legal system).

I suggest you go back and re-read my earlier post explaining this matter, if you still don't get it let me know.

EDIT: here I'll make it easy for you:

1) https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108070759&postcount=20

2) https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108071640&postcount=28 (and perhaps you can answer the questions you've avoided in that one)

FreudianSlippers

splinter65 wrote: »

But why would she or Adams be appogising if they were sure there was nothing to apologize for? I sure as hell wouldn’t be saying sorry if I was confident that no one in my organization had sexually abused anyone...

If you extrapolate the logic contained at post 47 in terms of what they allege the report says, SF have apologised for structural incompetence within the PSNI. Which is, admittedly, an odd thing for SF to apologise about.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What fact? A claim, unproven and not properly investigated is a fact?

..........




You say 'brought to justice', for what? has anything been proven in a court of law? The claims should have gotten proper investigation. That's why the report is critical of the PSNI. She may or may not have been abused in the eyes of the law. There wasn't a proper investigation. Ms. Cahill did not get the representation she or anyone making such claims deserves. How many degrees did you say?

I really don't care whether she may or may not have been abused in the eyes of the law.

I have some really simple questions for you:

(1) Do you believe that Mairia Cahill was abused?

(2) Do you believe that Mairia Cahill was abused by a member of SF/IRA?

(3) Do you believe that the IRA conducted a kangaroo court investigation into her abuse?

(4) Do you believe that Sinn Fein should account fully for how they handled the accusations of child abuse against their member?


Yes or no, so fairly simple to answer.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They turned up last time and released a statement saying they wanted the chance to clear their names. No lie there.

And the news this morning claimed the defendant was still protesting his innocence.

Good job there isn't mandatory hanging here on the basis of allegations.

Last time? When was that, five years ago? You said "it seems" as in present tense. Perhaps you can explain how you are so sure that the defendants want their day in court.

Well, it is now clear from information only published today that one of the defendants was expelled from Sinn Fein. If you believe in his innocence, are you going to criticise Sinn Fein for their failure to observe due process and expel an innocent man?

So which is it, Sinn Fein are guilty of infringing an innocent man's rights or the man is a child abuser? Please let us know which option you prefer.

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If you extrapolate the logic contained at post 47 in terms of what they allege the report says, SF have apologised for structural incompetence within the PSNI. Which is, admittedly, an odd thing for SF to apologise about.

So we know abuse took place and nobody was brought to justice for the abuse. Gotcha.

Also...something about the PSNI not doing good by Ms. Cahill.

FrancieBrady

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If not, why did Gerry and Mary Lou apologize to her?

Read what ML said.

She apologised because mandatory reporting was not in place. She is also on record as saying it is not SF's place to investigate abuse claims or allegations, and that the IRA should not have been doing it either.

Zubeneschamali

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She apologised because mandatory reporting was not in place.

Sinn Féin has robust procedures in place for mandatory reporting of abuse. I deeply regret that these procedures were not in place at the time of Máiría Cahill’s disclosure. For this I unreservedly apologise. I wish Máiría Cahill every best wish for the future.

So ML is saying SF now has robust procedures in place for reporting.

Given that SF knows something about a member which caused them to expel that member, have they now (under their robust procedures) given all details on that member to the police?

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So we know abuse took place and nobody was brought to justice for the abuse. Gotcha.

Also...something about the PSNI not doing good by Ms. Cahill.

Unless you disagree with what seems to be contained in the report based on the statements by PSNI Chief Constable George Hamilton and the leader of Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald, it seems like you're on the right track here.

Unfortunately, you appear to be incapable of answering some basic questions which have been repeatedly addressed to you on this thread.

marieholmfan

blanch152 wrote: »

[
I suspect, that as with the Catholic Church, the truth will have to be dragged out of Sinn Fein, little by little.

Sinn Fein cannot be permitted to run a 'shadow state'.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Last time? When was that, five years ago? You said "it seems" as in present tense. Perhaps you can explain how you are so sure that the defendants want their day in court.

Well, it is now clear from information only published today that one of the defendants was expelled from Sinn Fein. If you believe in his innocence, are you going to criticise Sinn Fein for their failure to observe due process and expel an innocent man?

So which is it, Sinn Fein are guilty of infringing an innocent man's rights or the man is a child abuser? Please let us know which option you prefer.

Far as I know, it is standard proceedure to suspend anyone if allegations are made.

This from 8 years ago.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/politics/sinn-fein-not-our-job-to-probe-abuse-claims-109918.html

The party confirmed one of its representatives is barred from having anything to do with its political activities because the PSNI is investigating allegations of abuse.

It said its policy is to suspend all members suspected of abuse and pass on the details to the police. It cannot be expected to decide whether a person is guilty or not, it said.
If it standard procedure of the arty I cannot see what rights were infringed. That is the rule of the organsiation, you accept them or don't join.

FrancieBrady

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sinn Féin has robust procedures in place for mandatory reporting of abuse. I deeply regret that these procedures were not in place at the time of Máiría Cahill’s disclosure. For this I unreservedly apologise. I wish Máiría Cahill every best wish for the future.

So ML is saying SF now has robust procedures in place for reporting.

Given that SF knows something about a member which caused them to expel that member, have they now (under their robust procedures) given all details on that member to the police?

No idea.

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Read what ML said.

She apologised because mandatory reporting was not in place. She is also on record as saying it is not SF's place to investigate abuse claims or allegations, and that the IRA should not have been doing it either.

“I welcome the publication of the Ombudsman’s report and the fact that the PSNI have accepted and will implement the recommendations of that report.

“Abuse has scarred too many lives across Ireland. We all have a responsibility to keep children safe.

“I have no doubt that the three women at the heart of this report have been through an ordeal.

“I want to commend their bravery, in particular the bravery of Mairia Cahill for waiving her anonymity.

“Sinn Féin has robust procedures in place for mandatory reporting of abuse.

“I deeply regret that these procedures were not in place at the time of Mairia Cahill’s disclosure. For this I unreservedly apologise.

“I wish Mairia Cahill every best wish for the future.”

Unless you are reading something differently, MLMcD seems to be saying (a) there was abuse against three victims (b) they have been through an ordeal in relation to that abuse (c) SF believes that its procedures require mandatory reporting of abuse and those procedures were not in place at the time of MC's disclosure.

I think this is fairly clear that regardless of the perpetrator of said abuse, SF accepts the report that abuse occurred and the victims were failed.