Mother and babies homes information sealed for 30 years

Donald Trump

BluePlanet wrote: »

I'd have to automatically suspect she is protecting an abuser in such a scenario.

Detail where the incident of pregnancy may have occurred and outline the steps you've taken since to identify the father.

Well that's fine. If you'd prefer that she protect that abuser by taking her own life instead of giving birth so that "society" can save a few quid in lone parents then you are entitled to have that opinion. I don't agree with that. I think that she should have a safe outlet to seek help

BluePlanet

GarIT wrote: »

When you resort to personal insults especially inaccurate ones you lose the argument and make a fool of yourself.

um what?
A Dead Beat Dad is a phrase for a father that doesn't contribute (money) to the raising of his child. Whether that child be living in the same home or not.

GarIT

BluePlanet wrote: »

I'd have to automatically suspect she is protecting an abuser in such a scenario.

Detail where the incident of pregnancy may have occurred and outline the steps you've taken since to identify the father.

Absolute nonsense. Met him in a nightclub, CCTV was gone by the time I realised I was pregnant. Said his name was Dave, can't find him amongst the 300,000 Daves on Facebook.

BluePlanet

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well that's fine. If you'd prefer that she protect that abuser by taking her own life instead of giving birth so that "society" can save a few quid in lone parents then you are entitled to have that opinion. I don't agree with that. I think that she should have a safe outlet to seek help

So dramatic Donald Trump.
I'll wager such a scenario would be as RARE as your previous one and it would be much more likely that she is the victim of some sexual abuse.

Donald Trump

GarIT wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Met him in a nightclub, CCTV was gone by the time I realised I was pregnant. Said his name was Dave, can't find him amongst the 300,000 Daves on Facebook.

They could always contact the Ray D'Arcy show

GarIT

BluePlanet wrote: »

um what?
A Dead Beat Dad is a phrase for a father that doesn't contribute (money) to the raising of his child. Whether that child be living in the same home or not.

I understand the term, don't assume I'm an idiot. You have no idea of the posters life that you are calling a dead beat dad.

Donald Trump

BluePlanet wrote: »

So dramatic Donald Trump.
I'll wager such a scenario would be as RARE as your previous one and it would be much more likely that she is the victim of some sexual abuse.

How about childline protecting abusers by not demanding information of kids who ring it?


Using your logic then they should refuse to help them unless the orgasnisation receives identifying information - no? Especially if they think it is an abuse case?

GarIT

BluePlanet wrote: »

So dramatic Donald Trump.
I'll wager such a scenario would be as RARE as your previous one and it would be much more likely that she is the victim of some sexual abuse.

If you base your argument on false assumptions without evidence it's probably a poor argument.

BluePlanet

GarIT wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Met him in a nightclub, CCTV was gone by the time I realised I was pregnant. Said his name was Dave, can't find him amongst the 300,000 Daves on Facebook.

I bet your scenario is very rare.

By the way such are the exact sort of hoops one must engage in some countries when say, replacing a lost passport.
Where was the passport lost and What Steps have you taken to locate it.


But nonetheless she can maintain that story if she wants.
Let SW make a determination if she has taken steps to identify the father.

GarIT

BluePlanet wrote: »

I bet your scenario is very rare.

By the way such are the exact sort of hoops one must engage in some countries when say, replacing a lost passport.
Where was the passport lost and What Steps have you taken to locate it.


But nonetheless she can maintain that story if she wants.
Let SW make a determination if she has taken steps to identify the father.

Maybe it is rare. The point wasn't that it's common. The point was it's all you have to say and then you're not required to chase the father for social welfare.

BluePlanet

GarIT wrote: »

If you base your argument on false assumptions without evidence it's probably a poor argument.

That's the starting point.
Similar to Presume the party is innocent until proven guilty.
Of course there are loads of guilty people before the court, yet many lie and claim to be innocent. Nonetheless Our legal system starts with the assumption they are innocent.

Ergo, in imo if a mother is refusing to identify the father, the starting point is presuming she's a victim of abuse until it's proven she isn't.
I think that's fair enough because there are loads of women that ARE victims of abuse and the system is failing them, again and again.

Donald Trump

GarIT wrote: »

BluePlanet wrote: »

I bet your scenario is very rare.

By the way such are the exact sort of hoops one must engage in some countries when say, replacing a lost passport.
Where was the passport lost and What Steps have you taken to locate it.


But nonetheless she can maintain that story if she wants.
Let SW make a determination if she has taken steps to identify the father.

Maybe it is rare. The point wasn't that it's common. The point was it's all you have to say and then you're not required to chase the father for social welfare.

100 girls are interviewed. All 100 tell the exact same story "I met some fella in the club. I was pissed. We had sex out the back and I never saw him again". For 1 of them it is actually the case. Other 99 are spoofing.



How on earth can SW determine which 99 aren't telling the truth and which 1 is? The either accept the story for all or none!

BluePlanet

GarIT wrote: »

Maybe it is rare. The point wasn't that it's common. The point was it's all you have to say and then you're not required to chase the father for social welfare.

I didn't say that's all you have to "say".
Show me what can PROVE.
Show me you were at that night club and those dates align with the start of your pregancy.
But no i don't think we should disallow access to taxpayer SW militantly.
I said on compassionate grounds we should allow it.

suicide_circus

I cant really get my head around the sealing of the records but no doubt that's because i'm not privy to all the information. Of all the things you could say about Minister O'Gorman, being pro church/state collusion isnt one of them.

GarIT

BluePlanet wrote: »

That's the starting point.
Similar to Presume the party is innocent until proven guilty.
Of course there are loads of guilty people before the court, yet many lie and claim to be innocent. Nonetheless Our legal system starts with the assumption they are innocent.

Ergo, in imo if a mother is refusing to identify the father, the starting point is presuming she's a victim of abuse until it's proven she isn't.
I think that's fair enough because there are loads of women that ARE victims of abuse and the system is failing them, again and again.

That's absolutely off the wall bonkers.

Assume all women are raped unless they can provide a list of everyone they have had sex with. I'm genuinely laughing here sitting on the toilet.

BluePlanet

Donald Trump wrote: »

How on earth can SW determine which 99 aren't telling the truth and which 1 is? The either accept the story for all or none!

You've got it backwards.
It's not SW that needs to prove anything.
It's up to the applicant.

GarIT

BluePlanet wrote: »

I didn't say that's all you have to "say".
Show me what can PROVE.
Show me you were at that night club and those dates align with the start of your pregancy.
But no i don't think we should disallow access to taxpayer SW militantly.
I said on compassionate grounds we should allow it.

I don't know anyone nuts enough to keep proof of every time they left the house. Is a dairy enough proof or do I need to turn on Google location tracking?

BluePlanet

GarIT wrote: »

That's absolutely off the wall bonkers.

Assume all women are raped unless they can provide a list of everyone they have had sex with. I'm genuinely laughing here sitting on the toilet.

Tell me, what is good about giving SW to single mothers and letting the fathers go unidentified? What societal good are you defending?

Donald Trump

BluePlanet wrote: »

I didn't say that's all you have to "say".
Show me what can PROVE.
Show me you were at that night club and those dates align with the start of your pregancy.
But no i don't think we should disallow access to taxpayer SW militantly.
I said on compassionate grounds we should allow it.

So you think that these people are lying to scam the system.


Yet you don't seem to think that those same scammers might have the capacity to think to change their story to something else - "a man stopped to ask for directions and I invited him in for a cup of tea and one thing led to another and I never saw him again".


Your argument is ridiculous anyway. Lets assume that you yourself were in a nightclub on 10th January 2020? How do you prove it to me now? Remember that when you entered the nightclub, you weren't aware that you would be having to prove it today

GarIT

BluePlanet wrote: »

Tell me, what is good about giving SW to single mothers and letting the fathers go unidentified? What societal good are you defending?

Children don't go hungry and have a roof over their heads.

BluePlanet

Donald Trump wrote: »

Your argument is ridiculous anyway. Lets assume that you yourself were in a nightclub on 10th January 2020? How do you prove it to me now? Remember that when you entered the nightclub, you weren't aware that you would be having to prove it today

You get statements from others in the night club that you were there on that night.
Rocket Science 101.

BluePlanet

GarIT wrote: »

Children don't go hungry and have a roof over their heads.

Gosh GarIT, if a child is hungry and has no roof overhead one might think that that would maybe... i dunno... qualify as Compassionate Grounds?
Ya think?

Donald Trump

BluePlanet wrote: »

You get statements from others in the night club that you were there on that night.
Rocket Science 101.

lol. It's lucky for society that scammers don't have friends who are also scammers who might lie for them then isn't it?




All that kind of stupid system does it heap bureaucracy on top of genuine people. If you are worried about actual scammer - well scammers gonna scam anyway. You're not going to stop them with your "ideas".

GarIT

BluePlanet wrote: »

Gosh GarIT, if a child is hungry and has no roof overhead one might think that that would maybe... i dunno... qualify as Compassionate Grounds?
Ya think?

So you want rules than can be broken on compassionate grounds, but those compassionate grounds apply to everyone? It's rare than a single mothers child wouldn't go hungry if she was banned from social supports. So you compassionate grounds include everyone. You couldn't make this **** up, comedy gold.

BluePlanet

Donald Trump wrote: »

lol. It's lucky for society that scammers don't have friends who are also scammers then isn't it?




All that kind of stupid system does it heap bureaucracy on top of genuine people. If you are worried about actual scammer - well scammers gonna scam anyway. You're not going to stop them with your "ideas".

It's not about stopping every scammer.
It's about dissuading some of them.

It's a bit like locking up your bike.
Every single bike lock can be compromised.
It's just some take longer and require better tools to compromise.
A thief will invariably move-on if the target looks like it's going to take a bigger effort than they feel is worth it right now.

GarIT

Donald Trump wrote: »

lol. It's lucky for society that scammers don't have friends who are also scammers who might lie for them then isn't it?




All that kind of stupid system does it heap bureaucracy on top of genuine people. If you are worried about actual scammer - well scammers gonna scam anyway. You're not going to stop them with your "ideas".

They want to spend 10 times more on policing social welfare than they would spend paying it out.

At this rate why doesn't every night club have a social welfare inspector that takes everyone's names in case somebody gets pregnant?

jelem

Look sex is pleasure and all seem to forget along with ignorance from church\political
influence that there is "pill\condom and morning after pill\abortion".
nice to have a rolls royce but if dont have money to support then cannot "own\have".
As it is personal choice to have "baby" then it is upto the individual female to accept
liability.
This leads to if unwanted as "rape\abuse" then law steps in.
There are females with 5 or more children and expect support when they
are the ones committing crime of lack of "personal responsability".
Where is the "Pro life" orgs with their donations to pay the Females whom
decide to keep something they cannot afford.

BluePlanet

GarIT wrote: »

So you want rules than can be broken on compassionate grounds, but those compassionate grounds apply to everyone? It's rare than a single mothers child wouldn't go hungry if she was banned from social supports. So you compassionate grounds include everyone. You couldn't make this **** up, comedy gold.

If rules contain opt-outs on Compassionate Grounds, they are not rules that are being "broken".

BluePlanet

Anyway i don't care what Donald Trump or GarIT have to say anyway.
The sun is shining and i'm out the door.

GarIT

BluePlanet wrote: »

If rules contain opt-outs on Compassionate Grounds, they are not rules that are being "broken".

Broken, opt-out same difference.

Why would a rule exist defining who gets money but have a clause at the end doesn't apply if you're not getting the money.

At this point you're not making an argument just picking out single words you can disagree with I'm getting tired.

skooterblue2

mdwexford wrote: »

This seems baffling.
How the hell can they have voted for this.

This is not about the church, this is about the establishment wanting to protect names. In another 30 years nobody is going to remember this. I would say it is several prominent families not wanting it coming out how they deal with a "wayward" daughter.
Remember it is was not just the church involved, it was the states as well and the famiies who put them there.

mrslancaster

if Tusla are getting a copy of the information does the 30 year seal mean they will have details but can't release them? Or will they have to give personal data to people under GDPR rules.

If the records from the investigation is sealed in the National Archives, are the copy records in Tusla different

Donald Trump

BluePlanet wrote: »

It's not about stopping every scammer.
It's about dissuading some of them.

It's a bit like locking up your bike.
Every single bike lock can be compromised.
It's just some take longer and require better tools to compromise.
A thief will invariably move-on if the target looks like it's going to take a bigger effort than they feel is worth it right now.

Your "101 solution" of proving that someone was in a particular nightclub on a particular night of having that persons friends say that they were there too is analogous to locking up your bike with a lock made out of paper.

Mrs OBumble

Hermy wrote: »

All that's needed is to normalise the idea of a child and it's parents being allowed to know each others identities.

We need to normalise incest? Rape?


Yeah .....

GarIT

skooterblue2 wrote: »

This is not about the church, this is about the establishment wanting to protect names. In another 30 years nobody is going to remember this. I would say it is several prominent families not wanting it coming out how they deal with a "wayward" daughter.
Remember it is was not just the church involved, it was the states as well and the famiies who put them there.

Protect who's names? A report will be published this week that names the institutions. Any individuals are innocent until proven guilty in court so the state couldn't just publicise accusations whether they want to or not.

GarIT

BluePlanet wrote: »

Anyway i don't care what Donald Trump or GarIT have to say anyway.
The sun is shining and i'm out the door.

Bye, TTYL. Your joke the the state should assume every woman was raped unless she can present the man to say that she wasn't raped is hilarious, made my day. Feck that modern age nonsense of women being able speak for themselves lol.

quokula

quokula wrote: »

It's hard to find decent information on this without all the usual outrage merchants oversimplifying and misinterpreting it.

My understanding from what I've read was that it was already sealed for 30 years, that's out of the government's hands and today's vote didn't change that. It seems people gave testimony on the grounds it would be sealed and have a right to privacy that the government can't turn around and undo now.

As far as I can understand this vote makes information available that would otherwise be lost due to a previously existing deadline, to ensure that people directly involved are able to access the data should they wish to do so. It's quite technical but opposition parties are just opportunistically using it to play political games and attack the government over pre-existing things that this bill doesn't actually have influence over.

The government could do with some better PR to explain some of these things though, they rarely seem to get a look in in the media coverage.

Indeed.... The lefties & anti gubernment folk are either thick or using this as a political football. A bit of both really I suspect.

TheChizler

mrslancaster wrote: »

if Tusla are getting a copy of the information does the 30 year seal mean they will have details but can't release them? Or will they have to give personal data to people under GDPR rules.

If the records from the investigation is sealed in the National Archives, are the copy records in Tusla different

The 30 year seal only applies to the archive placed with the minister as outlined in the 2004 act. The whole point of the bill the other day was to give a new copy to Tusla. From there it's a bit less clear, but it stands to reason that it's expected Tusla will do something with it sooner rather than later otherwise what was the point of the whole exercise? The government's legal advice is that GDPR doesn't apply here, but that doesn't rule out the data being made accessible through some other means than a Subject Access Request.

I'm not sure if there's a difference between the two copies, but I'd expect Tusla would only hold information on victims, would testimony from individuals in the institutions and third parties necessarily be included in that? It would be useful if we had a breakdown of the data and what went where, could avoid a lot of confusion.

Fann Linn

OGorman giving his excuses now on Newstalk.

skooterblue2

GarIT wrote: »

Protect who's names? A report will be published this week that names the institutions. Any individuals are innocent until proven guilty in court so the state couldn't just publicise accusations whether they want to or not.

When the Government put something under the 100/50/30 year rule its to protect their interests and the interests of their friends, its not to protect citizens interests.

TheChizler

skooterblue2 wrote: »

When the Government put something under the 100/50/30 year rule its to protect their interests and the interests of their friends, its not to protect citizens interests.

What do you think has been locked away that wasn't scheduled to be anyway before this week?

skooterblue2

TheChizler wrote: »

What do you think has been locked away that wasn't scheduled to be anyway before this week?

I have no idea, this government has me confused more so than any that has gone before. There is no logic in it unless it was something they wanted to keep hidden.

skooterblue2

Fann Linn wrote: »

OGorman giving his excuses now on Newstalk.

By any chance did you manage to understand any of his double dutch jive talk? Or did the presenter be the good domesticated Journalist and only ask him easy questions?

Vetch

TheChizler wrote: »

The 30 year seal only applies to the archive placed with the minister as outlined in the 2004 act. The whole point of the bill the other day was to give a new copy to Tusla. From there it's a bit less clear, but it stands to reason that it's expected Tusla will do something with it sooner rather than later otherwise what was the point of the whole exercise? The government's legal advice is that GDPR doesn't apply here, but that doesn't rule out the data being made accessible through some other means than a Subject Access Request.

I'm not sure if there's a difference between the two copies, but I'd expect Tusla would only hold information on victims, would testimony from individuals in the institutions and third parties necessarily be included in that? It would be useful if we had a breakdown of the data and what went where, could avoid a lot of confusion.

The database transferred to Tusla contains biographical information about women and babies. Regarding Tusla's intentions, there is background on their approach to date here and presumably this is part of the reason why transfer to Tusla is opposed by some of those involved https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/arid-30955334.html

Regarding the AG's advice, there is commentary suggesting it's incorrect. As for information being made available by means other than an SAR, there's a problem if information should be made available under a SAR, and given that the intention is to close the archive for 30 years, this seems unlikely to me but unsure what other means you are thinking of?

TheChizler

Vetch wrote: »

The database transferred to Tusla contains biographical information about women and babies. Regarding Tusla's intentions, there is background on their approach to date here and presumably this is part of the reason why transfer to Tusla is opposed by some of those involved https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/arid-30955334.html

Regarding the AG's advice, there is commentary suggesting it's incorrect. As for information being made available by means other than an SAR, there's a problem if information should be made available under a SAR, and given that the intention is to close the archive for 30 years, this seems unlikely to me but unsure what other means you are thinking of?

Thanks for the clarification, andI suspect the real issue campaigners have is what you bring up regards Tusla, rather than the "government voting to hide files for 30 years" headline which is easily proven false but seems to be the entirety of public discourse on the issue.

I mean the data held with Tusla not the archive with the minister. I'm not an expert so don't know by what specific means data might be shared, but there are plenty of exemptions to GDPR for legal enquiries, tribunals, the Gardaí, and regulatory bodies and they are able to share information with relevant parties when necessary. I don't know if a law or ministerial order is needed or whatever. That's all assuming the AG is correct as well, no idea if he is, but I haven't been able to find examples of governments acting against advice so I'm not sure if they can without the existing law being tested in court.

dundalkfc10

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1320344314174648320?s=19

Interesting

jelem

TheChizler wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification, andI suspect the real issue campaigners have is what you bring up regards Tusla, rather than the "government voting to hide files for 30 years" headline which is easily proven false but seems to be the entirety of public discourse on the issue.

I mean the data held with Tusla not the archive with the minister. I'm not an expert so don't know by what specific means data might be shared, but there are plenty of exemptions to GDPR for legal enquiries, tribunals, the Gardaí, and regulatory bodies and they are able to share information with relevant parties when necessary. I don't know if a law or ministerial order is needed or whatever. That's all assuming the AG is correct as well, no idea if he is, but I haven't been able to find examples of governments acting against advice so I'm not sure if they can without the existing law being tested in court.

who is going to test in court with the extreme costs in ireland?.
nobody from government will as they can be seen as wanting to hide and deter
the public\concerned individuals\"children seeking closure".

jelem

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1320344314174648320?s=19

Interesting

GDPR is EU and ireland government hide by producing
Data Protection Act 2018 for which contains
No,
1. sanctions as criminal charges for breaches of act
2. sanctions as monetary fines for breaches of act.
even brexit uk have those in place.
corrupt government allow hide criminality to evade liability.

political analyst

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I have no idea, this government has me confused more so than any that has gone before. There is no logic in it unless it was something they wanted to keep hidden.

Whatever we haven't heard, I doubt it's any worse than what we have heard since 1994. The proverbial cat got out of the bag way back in the mid 1990s. So what is there to cover up for?!

Vetch

TheChizler wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification, andI suspect the real issue campaigners have is what you bring up regards Tusla, rather than the "government voting to hide files for 30 years" headline which is easily proven false but seems to be the entirety of public discourse on the issue.

I mean the data held with Tusla not the archive with the minister. I'm not an expert so don't know by what specific means data might be shared, but there are plenty of exemptions to GDPR for legal enquiries, tribunals, the Gardaí, and regulatory bodies and they are able to share information with relevant parties when necessary. I don't know if a law or ministerial order is needed or whatever. That's all assuming the AG is correct as well, no idea if he is, but I haven't been able to find examples of governments acting against advice so I'm not sure if they can without the existing law being tested in court.

I think it might be both the Tusla database and the larger archive that campaigners are focused on, but I did only start reading about this last night!

The main problem with the 2004 Act seems to be that it completely denies the right of access that is now enshrined in GDPR, and this right has to be abided by as Ireland is an EU member state. The 2004 was also amended by the 2018 Data Protection Act. There are exemptions of various types in GDPR (including to the right of access) but the 2004 Act is absolute in what it says. There is a thread here by Simon McGarr, a data protection solicitor, that comments on the whole thing: https://twitter.com/Tupp_Ed/status/1319419621439606789.

Regarding governments acting against the advice of the AG, the consensus seems to be that the government isn't bound by AG advice but they may find themselves in difficulty if they proceed in a different direction against advice. As to who's right, they're all only solicitors with an opinion!