Claire Byrne show. Her name was Clodagh

freshpopcorn

Bobtheman wrote: »

Again let me ask you if you were a hawe how would you deal with all of this. Confusing emotions. Can you imagine if your brother did this crime. Give them a break. It will be sorted. Stop the virue signalling

I don't know how I would react but I hope I wouldn't have/attend a mass for him in the area especially if the family didn't want it to happen. That's just my view on the matter.

iamwhoiam

Bobtheman wrote: »

Again let me ask you if you were a hawe how would you deal with all of this. Confusing emotions. Can you imagine if your brother did this crime. Give them a break. It will be sorted. Stop the virue signalling

Let me ask you if you were a Coll how would you cope with all this ? Can you imagine if you lost a daughter / sister and three grandsons . Give them a break can't you .

Garibaldi?

freshpopcorn wrote: »

You do relies they've big funeral Bill's/etc to pay for.
I'd day they could do with a bit of counselling as well.

The funeral costs for all five people will come out of the estate before anyone inherits anything. Those who paid the costs will submit them to the Executor. As in a normal death.

freshpopcorn

Garibaldi? wrote: »

The funeral costs for all five people will come out of the estate before anyone inherits anything. Those who paid the costs will submit them to the Executor. As in a normal death.

Yes. I know this.
They spoke about receiving these big Bill's tough and just wanting to get things sorted. It's pretty daunting having them come through the door.

Bobtheman

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Bobtheman wrote: »

Again let me ask you if you were a hawe how would you deal with all of this. Confusing emotions. Can you imagine if your brother did this crime. Give them a break. It will be sorted. Stop the virue signalling

Let me ask you if you were a Coll how would you cope with all this ? Can you imagine if you lost a daughter / sister and three grandsons . Give them a break can't you .

I have no idea . Either do you so stop jumping up on the bandwagon of public grief

Bobtheman

This will all be sorted quietly in the end. Why don't we all go off and help our neighbors instead of beating our chests to show how caring we are!

Bobtheman

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Bobtheman wrote: »

Again let me ask you if you were a hawe how would you deal with all of this. Confusing emotions. Can you imagine if your brother did this crime. Give them a break. It will be sorted. Stop the virue signalling

I don't know how I would react but I hope I wouldn't have/attend a mass for him in the area especially if the family didn't want it to happen. That's just my view on the matter.

Who cares what you think or I think ?!

Bobtheman

Let's all virtue signal to our hearts content but meanwhile vote for parties that underfund mental health services. Up ya boyhoo

freshpopcorn

Bobtheman wrote: »

This will all be sorted quietly in the end. Why don't we all go off and help our neighbors instead of beating our chests to show how caring we are!

This is a discussions forum and if you don't like the thread unfollow it.

Bobtheman wrote: »

Who cares what you think or I think ?!

You asked me how would I react if it was my brother/etc. I answered you. I didn't ask you questions from what i remember.

Garibaldi?

Nothing will bring their loved ones back. However, the law does measure human injury, grief and suffering in financial terms. Clodagh's people were not in a road accident, were not the victims of medical negligence or any other physical disaster. Their emotional trauma, however, was life-changing. The perpetrator is not there to be sued but his estate is.

SusieBlue

I'm actually beyond appalled and disgusted that this thread has twisted something innocent and justified into a men vs. women (or maternal vs paternal) issue.
Why does every thread on this forum end up descending down that rabbit hole?

I can't believe that there are people moaning that Clodagh's family will benefit financially because its not fair on Hawe's family. The mind boggles.

padd b1975

Garibaldi? wrote: »

Nothing will bring their loved ones back. However, the law does measure human injury, grief and suffering in financial terms. Clodagh's people were not in a road accident, were not the victims of medical negligence or any other physical disaster. Their emotional trauma, however, was life-changing. The perpetrator is not there to be sued but his estate is.

It's all gone a little 'Merchant of Venice' at this stage.

Really undignified from her mother and sister.

SusieBlue

padd b1975 wrote: »

It's all gone a little 'Merchant of Venice' at this stage.

Really undignified from her mother and sister.

Could not disagree more. They have been nothing but dignified and composed since the story broke in 2016.
They carried themselves far better than many others (probably myself included) would in the aftermath of such a horrific, heartbreaking event.

padd b1975

SusieBlue wrote: »

Could not disagree more. They have been nothing but dignified and composed since the story broke in 2016.
They carried themselves far better than many others (probably myself included) would in the aftermath of such a horrific, heartbreaking event.

Yeah, I agree with regards to the immediate aftermath.

Recent behaviour.... think I'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

SusieBlue

padd b1975 wrote: »

Yeah, I agree with regards to the immediate aftermath.

Recent behaviour.... think I'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

You are in no position to judge whatsoever unless you have had the misfortune to go through the exact same thing as what they did.

MrFresh

padd b1975 wrote: »

Yeah, I agree with regards to the immediate aftermath.

Recent behaviour.... think I'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Why? What have they done that is undignified?

padd b1975

MrFresh wrote: »

Why? What have they done that is undignified?

€€€€€€€€

JonnyMarbles

It's interesting to see the difference in outlook when someone kills another person.

If a man kills himself, then he must be mentally ill.

If a man kills someone else and then kills themselves, they are evil murdering bastards.

You have to be mentally ill to do what Hawe did.

JonnyMarbles

Garibaldi? wrote: »

Nothing will bring their loved ones back. However, the law does measure human injury, grief and suffering in financial terms. Clodagh's people were not in a road accident, were not the victims of medical negligence or any other physical disaster. Their emotional trauma, however, was life-changing. The perpetrator is not there to be sued but his estate is.

Terrible way of looking at things.

If a man drives into another person and causes their death, should his estate get ransacked to pay family members affected by the innocent persons death?

How far out the line do you go? Aunts? Uncles? Cousins?

MrFresh

padd b1975 wrote: »

€€€€€€€€

That's it? You think they are undignified because they want some of the estate of the man who killed their daughter? Some of her estate really. This is the problem with all these threads about compensation payouts. It puts out this perception that financial recompense, and the pursuit of it, is somehow dirty. They have every right to look for some of that estate and it doesn't matter if they want to give it all to charity, pay for therapy or splash out on a load of holidays. Money helps you enjoy life and when someone loses so much of their family in such tragic circumstances they need as much help as they can get in that regard.

ohnonotgmail

JonnyMarbles wrote: »

Terrible way of looking at things.

If a man drives into another person and causes their death, should his estate get ransacked to pay family members affected by the innocent persons death?

How far out the line do you go? Aunts? Uncles? Cousins?

They are not looking for money from his relatives. They are looking for money from his estate, half of which was his wifes.

freshpopcorn

padd b1975 wrote: »

€€€€€€€€

A few months after this happened they did a interview with a paper. The money was donated to charity.
They have also said they want nothing from the estate but they do want everything finalised and they want to donate anything left over to charity.

up for anything

Bobtheman wrote: »

I think you are virtue signaling and playing to the gallery. I never indicated such an opinion but play to the gallery all the same
Bottom line is the law needs to be changed so nobody profits from murder.
But the law is what is now. The hawes are people too. You might pick up a stone and throw it at them but they lost a son and daughter in law plus three grand children. They are not responsible for their sons behavior. His murders. The law as it exists is with them. Thus media stone throwing ain't going to help . Let them arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
Meanwhile jump up and down on your feminist bandwagon. It amounts to a hill of beans

You reveal so much of yourself in that, Bob the man. Wall-to-wall clichéd phrases designed to put me down. A little pathetic.

padser wrote: »

They are waging a media war. They might have good reason to do so - but I think it's beyond question that they are waging a media war against the school and the Hawe family - neither of whom have any blame for the tragic position they find themselves in.

What's to know? He was clearly disturbed mentally. He stopped taking his medication. He killed his family. He planned doing it.

What's left to know?

Honestly, what is this "truth" that people seem to want to come out?

MrFresh wrote: »

Sometimes there is no why to be found. And knowing the why often doesn't help anything.

Interested Observer wrote: »

This is what I've been wondering, I just don't know what accountability they're hoping or looking for.

What Alan Hawes did wasn't really the act of a mentally ill person who snapped. He planned how he would kill his family including working out how to silence them they wouldn't wake the next victim. Then wrote about how he enjoyed it. His victims' family just want to know what might have impelled him to commit those acts. It is doing mentally ill people a disservice to say someone like him is not well. There are evil people in this world. People who can find it in themselves to do things that most people would shudder at the thought of - Chris Watts another one like Alan Hawe. Of course, they want to know why he did it and if they were given full disclosure then they would not have to publicise and try and force it. If someone buried an axe in my daughter's head I'd like to know why too and I wouldn't rest until I knew why or I was left with no doubt that there wasn't a why.

JonnyMarbles wrote: »

Terrible way of looking at things.

If a man drives into another person and causes their death, should his estate get ransacked to pay family members affected by the innocent persons death?

How far out the line do you go? Aunts? Uncles? Cousins?

It was her estate too except... oh yeah, he butchered her before she could have a say in what happened to it. I'm sure if he'd offered her a choice before he killed her she would have left her part of the estate to her family and not his. I'm wondering why would his mother initiate a personal injury claim against her own son when the estate is theirs anyway? Why is his own mother ransacking his estate (to use your phrase)?

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

You are in no position to judge whatsoever unless you have had the misfortune to go through the exact same thing as what they did.

what you mean, of course, is that the poster is in no position to disagree with *your* judgement, which happens to be a positive one

SusieBlue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

what you mean, of course, is that the poster is in no position to disagree with *your* judgement, which happens to be a positive one

Who said anything about being positive?

I disagree that they are currently carrying themselves in an undignified manner and I don’t think it’s appropriate to cast judgment on their actions when we have (thankfully) never been in their shoes.
It’s not exactly an unreasonable or contrary stance to take, it’s a sensible, compassionate one.

Garibaldi?

JonnyMarbles wrote: »

Terrible way of looking at things.

If a man drives into another person and causes their death, should his estate get ransacked to pay family members affected by the innocent persons death?

How far out the line do you go? Aunts? Uncles? Cousins?

If the driver deliberately drove into that person and killed him/ her, I think he or she could/should be sued.If that driver died in the incident his/her estate could/should be sued.Of course the wider family experience grief.However, I think most people would agree that immediate family are most affected by tragedy and loss.

MrFresh

up for anything wrote: »

What Alan Hawes did wasn't really the act of a mentally ill person who snapped. He planned how he would kill his family including working out how to silence them they wouldn't wake the next victim. Then wrote about how he enjoyed it. His victims' family just want to know what might have impelled him to commit those acts. It is doing mentally ill people a disservice to say someone like him is not well. There are evil people in this world. People who can find it in themselves to do things that most people would shudder at the thought of - Chris Watts another one like Alan Hawe. Of course, they want to know why he did it and if they were given full disclosure then they would not have to publicise and try and force it. If someone buried an axe in my daughter's head I'd like to know why too and I wouldn't rest until I knew why or I was left with no doubt that there wasn't a why.

I think you are looking at mental illness in a vary narrow lens. Mental illness covers a very wide range of issues. But you are right in that there are people who are simply evil. Hawe could be one of those people but I don't think it could ever be definitively proven.

padser

up for anything wrote: »

What Alan Hawes did wasn't really the act of a mentally ill person who snapped. He planned how he would kill his family including working out how to silence them they wouldn't wake the next victim.

It's a real misunderstanding of mental illness to suggest that mental illness can only manifest itself as "snapping".

It's an even greater misunderstanding to suggest that because something was planned, it can't be the result of mental illness.

To be fair to you, the COB show suggested the same thing which is frankly p1ss poor broadcasting to have allowed it to go out.

The irony is, had A Hawe only killed himself - it wouldnt matter how much he had planned it - everyone would accept he was mentally ill. Because he also killed others - suddenly there is this pressure to reject the notion he was mentally ill.

I honestly don't understand it - I guess it's just that people need a person to blame, and they don't like to give him any "excuses"....

leestone

is there link to the piece anywhere?

freshpopcorn

leestone wrote: »

is there link to the piece anywhere?

Are you referring to the Claire Byrne episode?